30
|
Post by galaxytrash on May 29, 2023 21:06:44 GMT -6
Saturday, June 3 Florida at Vegas 8 p.m. ET
Monday, June 5 Florida at Vegas 8 p.m. ET
Thursday, June 8 Vegas at Florida 8 p.m. ET
Saturday, June 10 Vegas at Florida 8 p.m ET
*Tuesday, June 13 Florida at Vegas 8 p.m. ET
*Friday, June 16 Vegas at Florida 8 p.m. ET
*Monday. June 19 Florida at Vegas 8 p.m. ET
|
|
|
Post by galaxytrash on May 29, 2023 21:08:57 GMT -6
in a few games we can put to rest one of the most burning hockey questions of all time.
|
|
|
Post by galaxytrash on May 29, 2023 21:10:42 GMT -6
i ain't superstitious but vegas in 7.
|
|
|
Post by squishy24 on May 29, 2023 21:16:24 GMT -6
Cats in 6, only if Bob continues
|
|
|
Post by phill9 on May 29, 2023 21:54:22 GMT -6
And now the battle for the Cup reaches it's climax......which team will get their names on the Cup for the first time in their teams history?
Panthers in 6
|
|
|
Post by vadarx on May 29, 2023 23:09:06 GMT -6
picked Vegas to win it all on another board where we picked the whole playoffs before round 1 started. when I saw Stone was coming back, I changed my whole bracket... not changing my mind now.
Vegas in 7.
|
|
|
Post by jaty84 on May 29, 2023 23:26:30 GMT -6
Cats in 7.
|
|
|
Post by galaxytrash on May 30, 2023 1:53:30 GMT -6
shouldn't say it aloud, but i have a sense this could be a ring-a-ding-dong dandy of a SC finals.
one for the ages i hope.
|
|
|
Post by OldTimeHawky on May 30, 2023 6:10:43 GMT -6
Panthers in 6. It'd be nice to see Forsling and Duclair win it.
|
|
|
Post by steamer on May 30, 2023 7:23:22 GMT -6
Cats in 7.
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on May 30, 2023 8:15:48 GMT -6
Vegas in 6.
If for no other reason, than to hear the blithering of the doddering old dustfarts who have a case of sandinvaginitis because Vegas "didn't pay their dues" or some trite bullshit like that.
|
|
|
Post by vadarx on May 30, 2023 8:34:22 GMT -6
Vegas in 6. If for no other reason, than to hear the blithering of the doddering old dustfarts who have a case of sandinvaginitis because Vegas "didn't pay their dues" or some trite bullshit like that. admittedly, I rooted hard for the Caps in the 2018 Final. winning in year one was not something I wanted to see. now that they've had a few years, I'm fine with it.
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on May 30, 2023 8:43:11 GMT -6
Vegas in 6. If for no other reason, than to hear the blithering of the doddering old dustfarts who have a case of sandinvaginitis because Vegas "didn't pay their dues" or some trite bullshit like that. admittedly, I rooted hard for the Caps in the 2018 Final. winning in year one was not something I wanted to see. now that they've had a few years, I'm fine with it. Truth be told I was hoping Ovi never raised the cup. Plus, I was impressed with what Vegas did 1st season with a bunch of mid-tier guys and a goalie who lost the net. Ah well. I can still hope McDavid never wins it. Still, I think it's disingenuous to think a team should artificially suffer when they make the right moves just because they are new. My $0.02, but we shouldn't be pissed at Vegas for being run right, we should be pissed for Edmonton, Toronto, etc. for being run wrong.
|
|
|
Post by phill9 on May 30, 2023 9:22:11 GMT -6
picked Vegas to win it all on another board where we picked the whole playoffs before round 1 started. when I saw Stone was coming back, I changed my whole bracket... not changing my mind now. Vegas in 7. Don't talk to me anymore 🤣
|
|
|
Post by phill9 on May 30, 2023 9:34:32 GMT -6
admittedly, I rooted hard for the Caps in the 2018 Final. winning in year one was not something I wanted to see. now that they've had a few years, I'm fine with it. Truth be told I was hoping Ovi never raised the cup. Plus, I was impressed with what Vegas did 1st season with a bunch of mid-tier guys and a goalie who lost the net. Ah well. I can still hope McDavid never wins it. Still, I think it's disingenuous to think a team should artificially suffer when they make the right moves just because they are new. My $0.02, but we shouldn't be pissed at Vegas for being run right, we should be pissed for Edmonton, Toronto, etc. for being run wrong. I can't completely agree with you. I don't know if any expansion team before Vegas (and now Seattle) were given the same expansion draft options these 2 teams were. Expansion teams used to get the bottom of the bottom of existing teams players, guys who likely without expansion would have never played in the NHL. What did the Panthers have to choose from when they were awarded a team? It took them years to build a team. So although you may be ok with how management for Vegas and Seattle put together teams, they were given FAR better players to choose from then past expansion drafts. For that reason alone,I can never get behind either Vegas or Seattle until they suffer into a lottery team for several years. They didn't earn what other expansion teams from the past did, like Washington, Florida, and Tampa did. Side note: if Arizona has to relocate, the best thing the league could do to make them competitive is to disband the team, replace them with an expansion team, and allow that new team to pick and choose players from not only the "former" Arizona team, but get to pick players from all the other teams. It would make that team an instant playoff team, as it did Vegas and Seattle.
|
|
|
Post by Nikos on May 30, 2023 10:43:05 GMT -6
Truth be told I was hoping Ovi never raised the cup. Plus, I was impressed with what Vegas did 1st season with a bunch of mid-tier guys and a goalie who lost the net. Ah well. I can still hope McDavid never wins it. Still, I think it's disingenuous to think a team should artificially suffer when they make the right moves just because they are new. My $0.02, but we shouldn't be pissed at Vegas for being run right, we should be pissed for Edmonton, Toronto, etc. for being run wrong. I can't completely agree with you. I don't know if any expansion team before Vegas (and now Seattle) were given the same expansion draft options these 2 teams were. Expansion teams used to get the bottom of the bottom of existing teams players, guys who likely without expansion would have never played in the NHL. What did the Panthers have to choose from when they were awarded a team? It took them years to build a team. So although you may be ok with how management for Vegas and Seattle put together teams, they were given FAR better players to choose from then past expansion drafts. For that reason alone,I can never get behind either Vegas or Seattle until they suffer into a lottery team for several years. They didn't earn what other expansion teams from the past did, like Washington, Florida, and Tampa did. Side note: if Arizona has to relocate, the best thing the league could do to make them competitive is to disband the team, replace them with an expansion team, and allow that new team to pick and choose players from not only the "former" Arizona team, but get to pick players from all the other teams. It would make that team an instant playoff team, as it did Vegas and Seattle. I believe Vegas was the first expansion team under the hard cap and now Seattle as well. Teams also could protect far more players than they did in previous expansion drafts. The hard cap forced teams to leave good players with big cap numbers to be available and in some cases the expansions teams were able to make favorable trades if they did not choose certain players or in some cases pick a certain a player. All this allowed both Vegas and now Seattle much better players to start their respective teams.
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on May 30, 2023 11:25:22 GMT -6
Original Golden Knights,Jonathan Marchessault and Reilley Smith face the team that left them unprotected/unsigned back in '17' for the cup. Probably little more than six yro,water-under-the-bridge at this point but motivation's where you find it. The two veterans,along with 'Wild Bill' Karlsson have been the backbone of the Knights along with soldiers McNabb and Carrier,four ECF appearances with varying casts in six years of existence. Theodore's also been there since the start and has been a 'Marine' himself. Not technically an 'expansion' pick but traded by the Ducks for 'expansion draft considerations',so basically the same. McPhee's done a bang-up job of not only putting the team together,but adding to and improving it. Twenty plyers under contract next year,including all the important ones with 3.5M left-over and more than likely a buy-out of Lehner since his deal is clean and bonus-free should allow a Hill re-do and possibly Barbashev too if they decide to keep him. www.capfriendly.com/buyout-calculator/robin-lehnerThey've also been able to hang onto THIS year's 1st and two 3rd's even after bringing-in Eichel. I think the previous two PO failures and the offseason trade drama has over-looked the job Zito's done too! Reinhart(27) for a 1st and a mid-tier prospect,then re-signed him to a 6.5M contract for three years. Bennett(26) for a 2nd and signing rights to a 21yro,yet to make it prospect,then re-signed him to a dandy of a 4.42MX4 deal. Signed Verhaeghe(27)for 1MX2 and re-signed him for 4.16M for three more. Duclair was a nice 1.7MX1 signing after Ott didn't QO following 23gls in 66gms and a good re-do @3mx3. Luostaninen(24) came over in the Trocheck trade and re-signed for 1.5MX2 Montour came from Buffalo for a THIRD ROUND PICK and was then re-signed for 3.5MX3........what does it take for Fla to re-isign the 29yro UFA after a 16gl/73pt season? Gudas was an outstanding 2.5MX3 UFA signing! What can a guy say about the Canes waiving Forsling but that'll happen with an over-abundance of players at any one position for any team and Florida NEVER looked-back. The still 26yro minute-muncher is signed for one more @2.66M. Everyone knew 'Chucky' was one hell of a young player,but many(including me)still thought a HIGH price was paid.......he's a BEAST that was worth everything Fla gave-up!!! 'What about Bob'? I woulda swore a buy-out was in-the-cards this summer BUT not now! His value has already increased by leaps and bounds,and if he wins the cup,increases further. Can the Panthers even consider trading him at that point? With Spencer Knight in player assistance and Alex Lyon as back-up,I'd have to say no.
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on May 30, 2023 11:56:46 GMT -6
Truth be told I was hoping Ovi never raised the cup. Plus, I was impressed with what Vegas did 1st season with a bunch of mid-tier guys and a goalie who lost the net. Ah well. I can still hope McDavid never wins it. Still, I think it's disingenuous to think a team should artificially suffer when they make the right moves just because they are new. My $0.02, but we shouldn't be pissed at Vegas for being run right, we should be pissed for Edmonton, Toronto, etc. for being run wrong. I can't completely agree with you. I don't know if any expansion team before Vegas (and now Seattle) were given the same expansion draft options these 2 teams were. Expansion teams used to get the bottom of the bottom of existing teams players, guys who likely without expansion would have never played in the NHL. What did the Panthers have to choose from when they were awarded a team? It took them years to build a team. So although you may be ok with how management for Vegas and Seattle put together teams, they were given FAR better players to choose from then past expansion drafts. For that reason alone,I can never get behind either Vegas or Seattle until they suffer into a lottery team for several years. They didn't earn what other expansion teams from the past did, like Washington, Florida, and Tampa did. Side note: if Arizona has to relocate, the best thing the league could do to make them competitive is to disband the team, replace them with an expansion team, and allow that new team to pick and choose players from not only the "former" Arizona team, but get to pick players from all the other teams. It would make that team an instant playoff team, as it did Vegas and Seattle. As Nikos pointed out,the hard-cap era has left a better quality of player available/unprotected but with only one from each team being available,the RIGHT decisions still had to be made......and were. Both teams also had successful UFA signings and trades to their credit that greatly bolstered both rosters. Joining the league with no previous year's roster that's played together or any semblance of a farm system/prospect pool is still a lot to overcome IMO. A lot of teams ain't into sufferng,for one year,let alone several. Previous expansion teams have struggled but so have two original six teams in two of the biggest markets,60 combined cup-less years for the Habs and Rags. Vagas and Seattle both constructed well-balanced teams that can roll four lines and three D-pairs with additions that were available to all teams since their starts. The Kraken picked a good one in Ron Francis and he picked a good one in Hakstol and I have to wonder how Boston feels about letting Cassidy walk......HC's matter.
|
|
|
Post by squishy24 on May 30, 2023 12:00:58 GMT -6
Panthers in 6. It'd be nice to see Forsling and Duclair win it. So another ex Hawks dman raising the cup, following Kempny and Rutta
|
|
|
Post by Nikos on May 30, 2023 12:19:58 GMT -6
I can't completely agree with you. I don't know if any expansion team before Vegas (and now Seattle) were given the same expansion draft options these 2 teams were. Expansion teams used to get the bottom of the bottom of existing teams players, guys who likely without expansion would have never played in the NHL. What did the Panthers have to choose from when they were awarded a team? It took them years to build a team. So although you may be ok with how management for Vegas and Seattle put together teams, they were given FAR better players to choose from then past expansion drafts. For that reason alone,I can never get behind either Vegas or Seattle until they suffer into a lottery team for several years. They didn't earn what other expansion teams from the past did, like Washington, Florida, and Tampa did. Side note: if Arizona has to relocate, the best thing the league could do to make them competitive is to disband the team, replace them with an expansion team, and allow that new team to pick and choose players from not only the "former" Arizona team, but get to pick players from all the other teams. It would make that team an instant playoff team, as it did Vegas and Seattle. As Nikos pointed out,the hard-cap era has left a better quality of player available/unprotected but with only one from each team being available,the RIGHT decisions still had to be made......and were. Both teams also had successful UFA signings and trades to their credit that greatly bolstered both rosters. Joining the league with no previous year's roster that's played together or any semblance of a farm system/prospect pool is still a lot to overcome IMO. A lot of teams ain't into sufferng,for one year,let alone several. Previous expansion teams have struggled but so have two original six teams in two of the biggest markets,60 combined cup-less years for the Habs and Rags. Vagas and Seattle both constructed well-balanced teams that can roll four lines and three D-pairs with additions that were available to all teams since their starts. The Kraken picked a good one in Ron Francis and he picked a good one in Hakstol and I have to wonder how Boston feels about letting Cassidy walk......HC's matter. No question McPhee and Francis talented hockey people and well respected. Would have love to have McPhee President of Hockey Operations with our Hawks, but Rocky and Danny had other ideas.
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on May 30, 2023 18:43:25 GMT -6
Truth be told I was hoping Ovi never raised the cup. Plus, I was impressed with what Vegas did 1st season with a bunch of mid-tier guys and a goalie who lost the net. Ah well. I can still hope McDavid never wins it. Still, I think it's disingenuous to think a team should artificially suffer when they make the right moves just because they are new. My $0.02, but we shouldn't be pissed at Vegas for being run right, we should be pissed for Edmonton, Toronto, etc. for being run wrong. I can't completely agree with you. I don't know if any expansion team before Vegas (and now Seattle) were given the same expansion draft options these 2 teams were. Expansion teams used to get the bottom of the bottom of existing teams players, guys who likely without expansion would have never played in the NHL. What did the Panthers have to choose from when they were awarded a team? It took them years to build a team. So although you may be ok with how management for Vegas and Seattle put together teams, they were given FAR better players to choose from then past expansion drafts. For that reason alone,I can never get behind either Vegas or Seattle until they suffer into a lottery team for several years. They didn't earn what other expansion teams from the past did, like Washington, Florida, and Tampa did. Side note: if Arizona has to relocate, the best thing the league could do to make them competitive is to disband the team, replace them with an expansion team, and allow that new team to pick and choose players from not only the "former" Arizona team, but get to pick players from all the other teams. It would make that team an instant playoff team, as it did Vegas and Seattle. They weren't, and I think that keeping the previous teams in the cellar bit the league in the ass. Most of the teams that came in as expansions started out near the bottom getting the scraps of the league, and I believe that as a result some of their attendance numbers falter. The shiny, new toy vibe faltered, and it's taken either a ton of years for the club establish a loyal fanbase (if they ever have), and as such, the league was not able to reap the long-term benefits of a sound fanbase in new markets. Arizona, Florida, Columbus, etc. come to mind. I don't think Vegas or Seattle should be singled out because the league was short-sighted in the past and corrected a mistake. There's no doubt that they were given better players, but they weren't given superstars like some think. The only possible argument was MAF, and at the time he lost the net in Pittsburgh. I think the league was targeting that those teams should get mid-tier players so they'd be in the middle third of the league from the get-go. Vegas overachieved--mainly because their roster worked well with each other in their 1st season. They missed out once. Seattle did it differently, they tanked out in their 1st year and built the team from picks...like we are trying to do right now. There should be, and should have been, incentive for the league to give each of their expansion teams a roster that's around mid-tier. They want to get the fans hooked beyond the initial "new toy" phase and get the fans to commit. So far, I see that happening. Vegas (as of last season when I was there) had a loud, loyal following. This is a good thing. From out perspective neither Seattle nor Vegas hindered the 'hawks in any way, shape, or form. None of the players they got from us from expansion would have kept the 'hawks from becoming as bad as they got. Same with many, many other franchises. hsbob also hits on the point about team cohesion and the effect of coaching. You can add in the GM'ing and the core concept of how the teams were built, and contrast that to the 'hawks previous regime. I don't put that on Vegas or Seattle being too good too soon, I put that on the 'hawks ownership keeping around bad management personnel. Same with a lot of other teams that have been outpaced by the most recent expansions.
|
|
|
Post by galaxytrash on May 30, 2023 19:08:03 GMT -6
i'm rooting for a 7 game series more than i am for either team to win. it's just a 9 day wait for the draft if this series goes 7 games. if it's a sweep it's 18 days.
|
|
|
Post by bigbarn27 on May 31, 2023 7:26:05 GMT -6
Well im taking VEGAS in 6 just because I have been wrong on most of the series. Time for Ruutu to hoist a cup!! Go cats!
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on May 31, 2023 7:47:07 GMT -6
i'm rooting for a 7 game series more than i am for either team to win. it's just a 9 day wait for the draft if this series goes 7 games. if it's a sweep it's 18 days. I can see this one going the distance.
|
|
|
Post by phill9 on May 31, 2023 8:51:57 GMT -6
i'm rooting for a 7 game series more than i am for either team to win. it's just a 9 day wait for the draft if this series goes 7 games. if it's a sweep it's 18 days. I wanted to pick the Panthers in 2......but that wasn't an option 😆
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on May 31, 2023 10:43:12 GMT -6
I can't completely agree with you. I don't know if any expansion team before Vegas (and now Seattle) were given the same expansion draft options these 2 teams were. Expansion teams used to get the bottom of the bottom of existing teams players, guys who likely without expansion would have never played in the NHL. What did the Panthers have to choose from when they were awarded a team? It took them years to build a team. So although you may be ok with how management for Vegas and Seattle put together teams, they were given FAR better players to choose from then past expansion drafts. For that reason alone,I can never get behind either Vegas or Seattle until they suffer into a lottery team for several years. They didn't earn what other expansion teams from the past did, like Washington, Florida, and Tampa did. Side note: if Arizona has to relocate, the best thing the league could do to make them competitive is to disband the team, replace them with an expansion team, and allow that new team to pick and choose players from not only the "former" Arizona team, but get to pick players from all the other teams. It would make that team an instant playoff team, as it did Vegas and Seattle. They weren't, and I think that keeping the previous teams in the cellar bit the league in the ass. Most of the teams that came in as expansions started out near the bottom getting the scraps of the league, and I believe that as a result some of their attendance numbers falter. The shiny, new toy vibe faltered, and it's taken either a ton of years for the club establish a loyal fanbase (if they ever have), and as such, the league was not able to reap the long-term benefits of a sound fanbase in new markets. Arizona, Florida, Columbus, etc. come to mind. I don't think Vegas or Seattle should be singled out because the league was short-sighted in the past and corrected a mistake. There's no doubt that they were given better players, but they weren't given superstars like some think. The only possible argument was MAF, and at the time he lost the net in Pittsburgh. I think the league was targeting that those teams should get mid-tier players so they'd be in the middle third of the league from the get-go. Vegas overachieved--mainly because their roster worked well with each other in their 1st season. They missed out once. Seattle did it differently, they tanked out in their 1st year and built the team from picks...like we are trying to do right now. There should be, and should have been, incentive for the league to give each of their expansion teams a roster that's around mid-tier. They want to get the fans hooked beyond the initial "new toy" phase and get the fans to commit. So far, I see that happening. Vegas (as of last season when I was there) had a loud, loyal following. This is a good thing. From out perspective neither Seattle nor Vegas hindered the 'hawks in any way, shape, or form. None of the players they got from us from expansion would have kept the 'hawks from becoming as bad as they got. Same with many, many other franchises. hsbob also hits on the point about team cohesion and the effect of coaching. You can add in the GM'ing and the core concept of how the teams were built, and contrast that to the 'hawks previous regime. I don't put that on Vegas or Seattle being too good too soon, I put that on the 'hawks ownership keeping around bad management personnel. Same with a lot of other teams that have been outpaced by the most recent expansions. This scenario,like all others comes down to how well-run a team is(ESPECIALLY SCOUTING)and how prepared they were for the expansion drafts. Many teams made shrewd moves before both drafts,either moving players they'd have to leave unprotected for as much as possible or negotiating with the new team to take or not take certain players by adding some sweetener BEFORE the draft. Teams could only protect 10 or 8+2 or whatever it was(do you remember how many players a team could protect in prior ex drafts?)but I think it's safe to say a team considered a player they left unprotected either unnecessary,unaffordable or yet to show much and therefore available to most teams. As we all know the ex team could only pick one player from each club and THIS is where the proper decisions had to be made by people familiar with the other 30 rosters and mostly were IMO. Nobody saw a Carlsson or McCann comin' or did they? The Ducks drafted 'Wild Bill' in the 2nd round,traded him to the BJ's @21 after 18 games and like a lotta young guys,he did squat in Columbus. He hasn't repeated that first breakout season of 43gls that helped propel the team to the SCF in it's first year but he's been a soldier when not dinged-up. Vancouver drafted McCann in the 1st round,skated him in 69 unremarkable games as a 19yro,then included him in a trade. He bounced around and was traded a few more times after a few more unremarkable seasons before the Leafs traded for him with the purpose of leaving him unprotected. 67 goals and 120 points in his first two years in Seattle suggests somebody sure as hell saw something. Then wrapped him up with a cap friendly 5MX5 deal. Back in the summer of '17',the Florida Panthers somehow left Jonathan Marchessault unprotected after acquiring his Group 6 rights and signing him to a 750KX2 deal AND after a 30 goal season with a year left @750k.........how long did the Florida Panthers go w/o winning a PO series till last year? The Knights said 'thank you very much'! Florida also left Reilly Smith unsigned the same summer and Vegas said 'thank you very much' once again. The two forwards along with Carlsson have been the BACK-BONE of the Golden Knights,along with McNabb who LA left unprotected as a 25yro D-man.....TY. The team was criticized for making BOLD moves and giving-up BIG assets for highly-paid Stone and Eichel and for the 8.8MX7 full NMC,bonus-laden deal they gave Pietrangelo yet here we are. Make a mistake and sign Lehner for 5MX5 and he gets hurt on top of it.....so what? Sign a 23yro,undrafted Logan Thompson who was a Calder candidate,going 21-13-3 2.65/.915 as a 26yro this year before going down to injury himself.....so what? They signed Brossoit as insurance two years ago and he's been decent when needed but he also goes down to injury 8 games into this year's PO's and once again.....so what? They got 26yro Adin Hill from the Ducks last summer for a F'n 4th and here we are. Some teams can't find a God Dammed goaltender to save their lives! Look at the D-core Seattle went to war with in the PO's,they still have all six of their expansion picks on D,none over 30 and none over-paid. The signing of two-time,cup winning,UFA D-man Justin Schultz for 3MX2 last summer was big for the Kraken and a big reason for their year over year turn round IMO. Signing cup-winning,UFA Jaden Schwartz the summer before for 5.5MX5 is another of those 'backbone' plyers who mean so much to that team. The truth is,every single player I mentioned was either left unprotected or unsigned,therefore available either through trades before the draft or on the UFA market BUT only if a team saw something in those players like LV and Seattle did.
|
|
|
Post by Tater on May 31, 2023 10:48:34 GMT -6
Cats in 6 for me.
|
|
|
Post by LordKOTL on May 31, 2023 12:13:01 GMT -6
They weren't, and I think that keeping the previous teams in the cellar bit the league in the ass. Most of the teams that came in as expansions started out near the bottom getting the scraps of the league, and I believe that as a result some of their attendance numbers falter. The shiny, new toy vibe faltered, and it's taken either a ton of years for the club establish a loyal fanbase (if they ever have), and as such, the league was not able to reap the long-term benefits of a sound fanbase in new markets. Arizona, Florida, Columbus, etc. come to mind. I don't think Vegas or Seattle should be singled out because the league was short-sighted in the past and corrected a mistake. There's no doubt that they were given better players, but they weren't given superstars like some think. The only possible argument was MAF, and at the time he lost the net in Pittsburgh. I think the league was targeting that those teams should get mid-tier players so they'd be in the middle third of the league from the get-go. Vegas overachieved--mainly because their roster worked well with each other in their 1st season. They missed out once. Seattle did it differently, they tanked out in their 1st year and built the team from picks...like we are trying to do right now. There should be, and should have been, incentive for the league to give each of their expansion teams a roster that's around mid-tier. They want to get the fans hooked beyond the initial "new toy" phase and get the fans to commit. So far, I see that happening. Vegas (as of last season when I was there) had a loud, loyal following. This is a good thing. From out perspective neither Seattle nor Vegas hindered the 'hawks in any way, shape, or form. None of the players they got from us from expansion would have kept the 'hawks from becoming as bad as they got. Same with many, many other franchises. hsbob also hits on the point about team cohesion and the effect of coaching. You can add in the GM'ing and the core concept of how the teams were built, and contrast that to the 'hawks previous regime. I don't put that on Vegas or Seattle being too good too soon, I put that on the 'hawks ownership keeping around bad management personnel. Same with a lot of other teams that have been outpaced by the most recent expansions. This scenario,like all others comes down to how well-run a team is(ESPECIALLY SCOUTING)and how prepared they were for the expansion drafts. Many teams made shrewd moves before both drafts,either moving players they'd have to leave unprotected for as much as possible or negotiating with the new team to take or not take certain players by adding some sweetener BEFORE the draft. Teams could only protect 10 or 8+2 or whatever it was(do you remember how many players a team could protect in prior ex drafts?)but I think it's safe to say a team considered a player they left unprotected either unnecessary,unaffordable or yet to show much and therefore available to most teams. As we all know the ex team could only pick one player from each club and THIS is where the proper decisions had to be made by people familiar with the other 30 rosters and mostly were IMO. Nobody saw a Carlsson or McCann comin' or did they? The Ducks drafted 'Wild Bill' in the 2nd round,traded him to the BJ's @21 after 18 games and like a lotta young guys,he did squat in Columbus. He hasn't repeated that first breakout season of 43gls that helped propel the team to the SCF in it's first year but he's been a soldier when not dinged-up. Vancouver drafted McCann in the 1st round,skated him in 69 unremarkable games as a 19yro,then included him in a trade. He bounced around and was traded a few more times after a few more unremarkable seasons before the Leafs traded for him with the purpose of leaving him unprotected. 67 goals and 120 points in his first two years in Seattle suggests somebody sure as hell saw something. Then wrapped him up with a cap friendly 5MX5 deal. Back in the summer of '17',the Florida Panthers somehow left Jonathan Marchessault unprotected after acquiring his Group 6 rights and signing him to a 750KX2 deal AND after a 30 goal season with a year left @750k.........how long did the Florida Panthers go w/o winning a PO series till last year? The Knights said 'thank you very much'! Florida also left Reilly Smith unsigned the same summer and Vegas said 'thank you very much' once again. The two forwards along with Carlsson have been the BACK-BONE of the Golden Knights,along with McNabb who LA left unprotected as a 25yro D-man.....TY. The team was criticized for making BOLD moves and giving-up BIG assets for highly-paid Stone and Eichel and for the 8.8MX7 full NMC,bonus-laden deal they gave Pietrangelo yet here we are. Make a mistake and sign Lehner for 5MX5 and he gets hurt on top of it.....so what? Sign a 23yro,undrafted Logan Thompson who was a Calder candidate,going 21-13-3 2.65/.915 as a 26yro this year before going down to injury himself.....so what? They signed Brossoit as insurance two years ago and he's been decent when needed but he also goes down to injury 8 games into this year's PO's and once again.....so what? They got 26yro Adin Hill from the Ducks last summer for a F'n 4th and here we are. Some teams can't find a God Dammed goaltender to save their lives! Look at the D-core Seattle went to war with in the PO's,they still have all six of their expansion picks on D,none over 30 and none over-paid. The signing of two-time,cup winning,UFA D-man Justin Schultz for 3MX2 last summer was big for the Kraken and a big reason for their year over year turn round IMO. Signing cup-winning,UFA Jaden Schwartz the summer before for 5.5MX5 is another of those 'backbone' plyers who mean so much to that team. The truth is,every single player I mentioned was either left unprotected or unsigned,therefore available either through trades before the draft or on the UFA market BUT only if a team saw something in those players like LV and Seattle did. I think the rule was something like 7fwds, 2D, and 1 G, or 4 or 5 skaters total and 1G. NMC's HAD to be protected, and there were limits on how much pro experience a player should have, ergo some rookie players were automatically protected. I think the latter was to protect a existing team's prospect pool. I think that Seattle and Vegas had to have a certain amount of cap hit drafted, so they couldn't just go for a ton of cheap players and completely tank out. For certain teams, it was, "who do we keep and who can we part with?". I believe in the Vegas draft teams were making trades with them specifically to prevent them from picking a specific unprotected player and instead they picked another one. I may be wrong, but I think that's what sent MAF their way. Other teams could protect their most important players, and only expose mid-tier-or-lower. I think in past expansion, like what phil was alluding to, is that teams were given THE bottom of the barrel, and thus it stopped them from being competitive for a long while--kinda like how we were circa 2004. I personally believe that was a mistake by the league because it took so long for those teams to get off the ground that it hurt the nascent fanbase development. I think the goal was that Vegas and Seattle would get the chance to be a 10-20 team with expansion, which would make them "competitive enough" that as the new toy syndrome wears down, fans can still see a team that could be good enough for at least a playoff push. To your point, I think that most of the players were indeed perceived as "mid-tier", I think many of them probably knew their clubs saw them as superfluous, and that gave them some incentive on Vegas/Seattle. I also think some players who were logjammed behind real stars probably saw it as a way to get out from a superstar's shadow. Couple that with good coaching and a gameplan by the management and you have 2 expansion clubs who quickly became competitive. I think there's a lot those clubs did right, and I think that it shouldn't be held against them; if anything, the other clubs not doing well should be held against those not-doing-well clubs. I kinda understand the logic behind, "well, Florida, Columbus, etc. had shitty rules in their expansions and got the short end of the stick, so it was unfair to Vegas/Seattle." But I don't agree; I think it's reversed. I think the league shot themselves in the foot by having those shitty rules for previous expansions and fixed it. Plus, I've never been one to accept the "I suffered, so my kids should suffer" mentality. I'm more like, "the youth should not face the same injustices I faced." But again, just my opinion:). I think Vegas and Seattle, as long as they keep their pace, will have stronger markets than teams like Columbus because they were able to reel in strong fanbase because they were at least competitive. Further, I stand behind the Chicago template of 8 years from first core pic to strong cup contender (or cup win), for any team who is well-run. Prior to Vegas...Columbus came in at 2000. It's 23 years later. If they were well-run, they should have been able to put together a team that would have gone beyond the 1st round in the intervening time, as an example. My $0.02.
|
|
|
Post by hsbob on May 31, 2023 12:27:20 GMT -6
I haven't made a single prediction so far in this year's PO's and it ain't no time to start now.......this one's a toss-up as far as I'm concerned.
Two great HC's,two talented,hard-working teams and I also happen to like both teams.
Does 'Bob' complete the 'resurrection'? Does 'Chucky' continue his indomitable will to win and does he pull the possibly rusty team along?
I thought Eichel's match-up with fellow '16' first rounder McDavid was the one to watch this year but his match-up with the first rounder from the year before is gonna be the main-event in this year's SCF. I like Capt Jack and I'm happy to see him get the PO action he's craved for so long,let's see what he's craving after playing against 'Chucky' every other night and how this brute affects him and the rest of the team.
I still see 'Bob' as a bit of a wildcard but I don't know if I see anybody able to overcome that 'indomitable will' of Mathew Tkachuk this go-round.
|
|
|
Post by T-man2010 on May 31, 2023 15:36:02 GMT -6
This scenario,like all others comes down to how well-run a team is(ESPECIALLY SCOUTING)and how prepared they were for the expansion drafts. Many teams made shrewd moves before both drafts,either moving players they'd have to leave unprotected for as much as possible or negotiating with the new team to take or not take certain players by adding some sweetener BEFORE the draft. Teams could only protect 10 or 8+2 or whatever it was(do you remember how many players a team could protect in prior ex drafts?)but I think it's safe to say a team considered a player they left unprotected either unnecessary,unaffordable or yet to show much and therefore available to most teams. As we all know the ex team could only pick one player from each club and THIS is where the proper decisions had to be made by people familiar with the other 30 rosters and mostly were IMO. Nobody saw a Carlsson or McCann comin' or did they? The Ducks drafted 'Wild Bill' in the 2nd round,traded him to the BJ's @21 after 18 games and like a lotta young guys,he did squat in Columbus. He hasn't repeated that first breakout season of 43gls that helped propel the team to the SCF in it's first year but he's been a soldier when not dinged-up. Vancouver drafted McCann in the 1st round,skated him in 69 unremarkable games as a 19yro,then included him in a trade. He bounced around and was traded a few more times after a few more unremarkable seasons before the Leafs traded for him with the purpose of leaving him unprotected. 67 goals and 120 points in his first two years in Seattle suggests somebody sure as hell saw something. Then wrapped him up with a cap friendly 5MX5 deal. Back in the summer of '17',the Florida Panthers somehow left Jonathan Marchessault unprotected after acquiring his Group 6 rights and signing him to a 750KX2 deal AND after a 30 goal season with a year left @750k.........how long did the Florida Panthers go w/o winning a PO series till last year? The Knights said 'thank you very much'! Florida also left Reilly Smith unsigned the same summer and Vegas said 'thank you very much' once again. The two forwards along with Carlsson have been the BACK-BONE of the Golden Knights,along with McNabb who LA left unprotected as a 25yro D-man.....TY. The team was criticized for making BOLD moves and giving-up BIG assets for highly-paid Stone and Eichel and for the 8.8MX7 full NMC,bonus-laden deal they gave Pietrangelo yet here we are. Make a mistake and sign Lehner for 5MX5 and he gets hurt on top of it.....so what? Sign a 23yro,undrafted Logan Thompson who was a Calder candidate,going 21-13-3 2.65/.915 as a 26yro this year before going down to injury himself.....so what? They signed Brossoit as insurance two years ago and he's been decent when needed but he also goes down to injury 8 games into this year's PO's and once again.....so what? They got 26yro Adin Hill from the Ducks last summer for a F'n 4th and here we are. Some teams can't find a God Dammed goaltender to save their lives! Look at the D-core Seattle went to war with in the PO's,they still have all six of their expansion picks on D,none over 30 and none over-paid. The signing of two-time,cup winning,UFA D-man Justin Schultz for 3MX2 last summer was big for the Kraken and a big reason for their year over year turn round IMO. Signing cup-winning,UFA Jaden Schwartz the summer before for 5.5MX5 is another of those 'backbone' plyers who mean so much to that team. The truth is,every single player I mentioned was either left unprotected or unsigned,therefore available either through trades before the draft or on the UFA market BUT only if a team saw something in those players like LV and Seattle did. I think the rule was something like 7fwds, 2D, and 1 G, or 4 or 5 skaters total and 1G. NMC's HAD to be protected, and there were limits on how much pro experience a player should have, ergo some rookie players were automatically protected.I think the latter was to protect a existing team's prospect pool. I think that Seattle and Vegas had to have a certain amount of cap hit drafted, so they couldn't just go for a ton of cheap players and completely tank out. For certain teams, it was, "who do we keep and who can we part with?". I believe in the Vegas draft teams were making trades with them specifically to prevent them from picking a specific unprotected player and instead they picked another one. I may be wrong, but I think that's what sent MAF their way. Other teams could protect their most important players, and only expose mid-tier-or-lower. I think in past expansion, like what phil was alluding to, is that teams were given THE bottom of the barrel, and thus it stopped them from being competitive for a long while--kinda like how we were circa 2004. I personally believe that was a mistake by the league because it took so long for those teams to get off the ground that it hurt the nascent fanbase development. I think the goal was that Vegas and Seattle would get the chance to be a 10-20 team with expansion, which would make them "competitive enough" that as the new toy syndrome wears down, fans can still see a team that could be good enough for at least a playoff push. To your point, I think that most of the players were indeed perceived as "mid-tier", I think many of them probably knew their clubs saw them as superfluous, and that gave them some incentive on Vegas/Seattle. I also think some players who were logjammed behind real stars probably saw it as a way to get out from a superstar's shadow. Couple that with good coaching and a gameplan by the management and you have 2 expansion clubs who quickly became competitive. I think there's a lot those clubs did right, and I think that it shouldn't be held against them; if anything, the other clubs not doing well should be held against those not-doing-well clubs. I kinda understand the logic behind, "well, Florida, Columbus, etc. had shitty rules in their expansions and got the short end of the stick, so it was unfair to Vegas/Seattle." But I don't agree; I think it's reversed. I think the league shot themselves in the foot by having those shitty rules for previous expansions and fixed it. Plus, I've never been one to accept the "I suffered, so my kids should suffer" mentality. I'm more like, "the youth should not face the same injustices I faced." But again, just my opinion:). I think Vegas and Seattle, as long as they keep their pace, will have stronger markets than teams like Columbus because they were able to reel in strong fanbase because they were at least competitive. Further, I stand behind the Chicago template of 8 years from first core pic to strong cup contender (or cup win), for any team who is well-run. Prior to Vegas...Columbus came in at 2000. It's 23 years later. If they were well-run, they should have been able to put together a team that would have gone beyond the 1st round in the intervening time, as an example. My $0.02. NMC's and ELC's were protected.
|
|