Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

So Chiarelli is President of Hockey Ops and GM in EDM. It's amazing what the right sequence of lottery balls can do for a franchise

 

Peter Chiarelli will turn this car around.

 

Probably (and let's be real, it'd be hard to mess that situation up right now)...but his last several years in Boston haven't exactly screamed "guaranteed success."

Posted

Probably (and let's be real, it'd be hard to mess that situation up right now)...but his last several years in Boston haven't exactly screamed "guaranteed success."

He gave Bruins fans what they wanted. A big dumb slow team.

Posted (edited)

Plays big. Old school hockey. Barrels into corners etc. But he doesn't have a nasty streak. Just more like a dog chasing a ball

 

Just saw stewart feeding Niederreiter, that is the kind of stewart i would love in buffalo, battling on the boards while keeping his head up to make that pass.

On a good established team he has a 3rd RW spot that you can move up as well.

 

We don't have that team as of yet though.

Edited by Heimdall
Posted

Not only did Forsberg not finish in the top 3 -- he wasn't top 4. Finished 5th in voting. Not sure who was 4th, maybe John Klingberg?

To me it's one of the two forwards (I would've had Forsberg in the conversation, too, but he's not a finalist).

 

What Ekblad did was 19 is awesome, but Klingberg had more points in far less games. Neither made the playoffs and their statlines were so close that you can barely differentiate the two. Stone's success correlates with Ottawa's huge run, so you could say he was the MVP of a playoff team (if you ignore Erik Karlsson's existence). Gaudreau was part of a huge youth group in Calgary that pushed them into the playoffs... Exciting little guy. Has hype on his side.

 

I think Ekblad wins it, but I would've picked Stone.

 

Ya, I find all this really interesting. The Calder nominations vote must have been very close this year. That stats of Stone, Gaudreau and Forsberg are nearly identical. Stone and Gaudreau both had the same amount of points, and Forsberg had ONE less. How were they able to draw the line after Stone and Gaudreau in a way that Ekblad was able to sneak in for the 3rd nomination, beating out Forsberg? Maybe that means that Ekblad is the front runner, and Forsberg lost the nomination based on the extremely slight edge of the other two forwards. Granted, obviously more than points are taken into account, but those 3 forwards seemed to play similar roles on successful teams.

Posted

I think they vote for Ekblad mainly because he's 19 and he makes it so they don't have to "break the tie" between the forwards. But this is only because they can get away with ignoring Klingberg's season as a rookie dman down in Dallas since there was no first-overall pick hype for him.

Posted

I think they vote for Ekblad mainly because he's 19 and he makes it so they don't have to "break the tie" between the forwards. But this is only because they can get away with ignoring Klingberg's season as a rookie dman down in Dallas since there was no first-overall pick hype for him.

Interesting thought.

Posted

Probably (and let's be real, it'd be hard to mess that situation up right now)...but his last several years in Boston haven't exactly screamed "guaranteed success."

Similar to what I say about Murray.  He inherited Risto & Girgs, and then in back to back drafts he is picking #2 overall(Reinhart & Eichel).  That core of 4 hopefully very good to great young players will easily buy Murray several years as GM, even if he is a tire fire regarding F/A, trades, and the rest of the draft(last year, this year & next year specifically.

Posted

Similar to what I say about Murray. He inherited Risto & Girgs, and then in back to back drafts he is picking #2 overall(Reinhart & Eichel). That core of 4 hopefully very good to great young players will easily buy Murray several years as GM, even if he is a tire fire regarding F/A, trades, and the rest of the draft(last year, this year & next year specifically.

I don't see the situations as that similar. Murray inherited a ton of assets and talent...Chiarelli is inheriting assets and talent that have already developed into good to great players.

Posted

Probably (and let's be real, it'd be hard to mess that situation up right now)...but his last several years in Boston haven't exactly screamed "guaranteed success."

His "last several years?" The Bruins won the Cup four seasons ago and were in the Finals two seasons ago along with four 100 point seasons over the last six full seasons. Of course there are no "guarantees" , if I'm an Oilers fan I am extremely excited about Chiarelli's track record.

Posted

The Stars media team/Jumbotron stuff is consistently hilarious.  They often will plant a fake fan for the other team in the crowd and then subject them to some sort of hell ("Seat Downgrade" to the parking lot, for example).  Best part of their Fan Appreciation Night was that they read an angry letter from a Blackhawks fan who thought it was all real.

Posted

Gary Bettman says next year's NHL salary cap is projected to be $71.5M.

 

That's not great news for Buffalo since there was speculation about it being lower which would've helped them poach players from teams close to the cap. You're welcome LA, Boston and Chicago.

 

 

Also:

 

Gary Bettman says no NHL teams are currently in danger of relocating. Wants to end that sort of speculation.

 

Gary Bettman, on the #sens desire to build an arena in downtown Ottawa: "We're watching closely."

 

 

And a bit of complete :

 

Gary Bettman on why the NHL won't disclose salaries: "We've heard from the media on this, we've heard very little from fans. Very little."

 

 

All from Chris Johnston.

Posted

What am I missing? Salaries aren't disclosed?

No. Only if and when the team feels like it.

 

I can't imagine that the fans would be angry if the league created a cap geek of their own as many have called on them to do. The stuff that they could do would be even more entertaining and valuable if honest.

Posted

No. Only if and when the team feels like it.

 

I can't imagine that the fans would be angry if the league created a cap geek of their own as many have called on them to do. The stuff that they could do would be even more entertaining and valuable if honest.

 

Huh.  I thought disclosure was part of the CBA.  I'm surprised there has been as much disclosure as there is if it isn't required.

Posted

Huh. I thought disclosure was part of the CBA. I'm surprised there has been as much disclosure as there is if it isn't required.

Not sure if it is required or not. The numbers we all discuss are cited through sources from reporters and not the teams. Most team releases you see will not give details of money and neither will the league's releases.

 

It should be public since the league is a nonprofit organization.

The teams aren't, though, so where do they fall? I guess they're actually probably employees of the for-profit teams, right?

Posted

Not sure if it is required or not. The numbers we all discuss are cited through sources from reporters and not the teams. Most team releases you see will not give details of money and neither will the league's releases.

 

It should be public since the league is a nonprofit organization.

The teams aren't, though, so where do they fall? I guess they're actually probably employees of the for-profit teams, right?

 

I don't get why you'd connect not for profit with the need to disclose salaries.

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a VERY SPECIFIC REASON to revive this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...