World Cup: 2016 World Cup — Team North America

[SelltheTeamFrancesco]

Is Johansen eligible

 

[SelltheTeamFrancesco]

Biased much?

MacKinnon, McDavid, Eichel, Monahan, Strome, Nugent-Hopkins, Galchenyuk, Jenner, Scheifele, Couturier.




Nope. Not close.

Yah u have to Remember this is a team not one of these center have win face offs regular Monahan is the best in that group. Horvat the youngest nhler in that group and the only one above 50% and probably the best if no second best definsevely so I think there is a very good chance.
Jenner and scheifele won't make the team IMO. I hope that RNH is not a center on this team.

 

[Aceonfire*]

Yah u have to Remember this is a team not one of these center have win face offs regular Monahan is the best in that group. Horvat the youngest nhler in that group and the only one above 50% and probably the best if no second best definsevely so I think there is a very good chance.
Jenner and scheifele won't make the team IMO. I hope that RNH is not a center on this team.

RNH will be one of the oldest players on this team and will likely have the most experience.

RNH has been facing the likes of Toews, Getzlaf, Thornton, Kopitar for years now and he holds his own.

And as for FO%.. More and more stats guys are seeing that FO% has little to do with scoring and success. A team like Anaheim actually does better when losing faceoffs in the OZ.

There is little to no reason to force a career center to the wing when he has more experience than the majority of the team.

 

[Big Phil]

So is the North American younstars team 23 and under, or Under 23?

This is a ridiculous idea for the World Cup that pretty much makes it an exhibition tournament, but I just wanted to get one thing clear, is it only for being Under 23 or is it 23 AND Under? In other words, what is the cut off date? Thanks.

 

[Filatov2Kovalev2Bonk]

This is a ridiculous idea for the World Cup that pretty much makes it an exhibition tournament, but I just wanted to get one thing clear, is it only for being Under 23 or is it 23 AND Under? In other words, what is the cut off date? Thanks.

Hope these articles help.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/world-cup-of-hockey-2016-projecting-the-north-american-youngstars/

"I’m fine with both entries – It’s not like we know this tournament replaces the Olympics – though it’s surprising to learn any players 23 and younger can only play for the Youngstars. That means a Nathan MacKinnon or Johnny Gaudreau can’t even make Canada and the U.S, respectively, on merit."

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/39385/who-should-lead-youngstars-team-at-world-cup-of-hockey

"As you know, any player from Canada or the United States who has not turned 24 as of Sept. 1, 2016, will be eligible for the YoungStars squad. That will no doubt include Nathan MacKinnon, Seth Jones, Brandon Saad, Alex Galchenyuk, Jacob Trouba, Aaron Ekblad and a couple of kids named Connor McDavid and Jack Eichel; they will have no choice in the matter; if they’re going to play in the World Cup of Hockey, they’ll be playing for the young guns squad."

 

[xxxx]

The official NHL.com article clearly says that it has not been decided yet. Official nhl.com roster prediction had an 23 AND under roster, in other words, U-24, with September, where the tournament starts, the cut off month, but as I said, nothing has been said officially yet.

 

[Big Phil]

The tournament isn't for another year. They'll be in the NHL this year. If one or both just completely bomb ass they won't be on the team.

Morgan Rielly was on the radio the other day and said that making the U23 team is a goal he has.

And there in lies the problem with the idiotic players on this issue. Where the heck is Crosby or Toews or Price or Getzlaf stepping up and talking about how silly of an idea this is for a tournament? Crosby saying something like, "I'm not playing in this tournament, or against my own country." Ovechkin steps up for the 2014 Olympics and not a single word from a prominent player against this? Did Donald Fehr drug these guys all of a sudden?

Every once in a while I'll click into this thread hoping that the latest news is the idea has been scrapped. Guess I'll just have to keep hoping for one more year.

I do too.

Can you imagine if the Olympic committee in 1980 thought that the USA ice hockey team was not good enough so instead they created a rest of world team and team USSR U23 team?

Would the Mike Erruizone goal for the rest of world team to upset the USSR be a magical moment?


The point of an International tournament is not just to have the best players. It is to give fans and non-fans a rooting interest by supporting our national pride. People watch the Olympics and the world cup to see players honor there country by playing with passion. This raises the entertainment value of the event. This U23 team and rest of Europe tosses all that out the window.

This is a meaningless tournament. Nothing more than a expensive scrimmage match.

That's right, and it is too bad. I mean, where the heck is Don Cherry on this one even? You think he'd be speaking out against it. Mike Milbury? Brett Hull? Someone else with a backbone? Ron MacLean even? The media is in bed with this idea. Money talks I guess.

 

[WhiteLight*]

And there in lies the problem with the idiotic players on this issue. Where the heck is Crosby or Toews or Price or Getzlaf stepping up and talking about how silly of an idea this is for a tournament? Crosby saying something like, "I'm not playing in this tournament, or against my own country." Ovechkin steps up for the 2014 Olympics and not a single word from a prominent player against this? Did Donald Fehr drug these guys all of a sudden?



I do too.



That's right, and it is too bad. I mean, where the heck is Don Cherry on this one even? You think he'd be speaking out against it. Mike Milbury? Brett Hull? Someone else with a backbone? Ron MacLean even? The media is in bed with this idea. Money talks I guess.

Fact is that there isn't 8 countries out there that can field competitive teams. That's life. The Czechs and Fins are barely hanging in there is it.

This isn't the Olympics either. So, you can keep sitting there and be frustrated that your OCD need for 8 actual countries isn't being fulfilled... or, you can realize that a tournament filled with all the best players in the world and featuring fun rosters and line combinations will be taking place.

Maybe of we gave it another name you wouldn't have such an issue? What about the 2016 Fun Cup? Now would you be OK with it?


The reality is the NHLPA signed off on this. It's clear the NHL is trying to get as many NHL players to participate as possible. Why the **** wouldn't they? People are taking this thing way too seriously.

 

[JackSlater]

Fact is that there isn't 8 countries out there that can field competitive teams. That's life. The Czechs and Fins are barely hanging in there is it.

Not true. At the top level Switzerland and Slovakia have shown the ability to compete with Canada and other countries at best on best tournaments over the last decade. There are at least 8 competitive teams.

This isn't the Olympics either. So, you can keep sitting there and be frustrated that your OCD need for 8 actual countries isn't being fulfilled... or, you can realize that a tournament filled with all the best players in the world and featuring fun rosters and line combinations will be taking place.

Maybe of we gave it another name you wouldn't have such an issue? What about the 2016 Fun Cup? Now would you be OK with it?

It isn't fun, it's idiotic, like a more wasteful version of the all star game.

The reality is the NHLPA signed off on this. It's clear the NHL is trying to get as many NHL players to participate as possible. Why the **** wouldn't they? People are taking this thing way too seriously.

Who cares if the NHLPA signed off on it, that does nothing to change how idiotic the concept is. The NHL shouldn't do this for a very clear reason - they are presenting this as an international tournament, and then involving non-nations. If a fan wants to see as many NHL players as possible, how lucky that for most of the year there is a whole league called the "NHL" that features exclusively NHL players.

 

[Canuckistani]

Fact is that there isn't 8 countries out there that can field competitive teams.

Sure there are. Slovakia and Switzerland aren't exactly pushovers. The Swiss went to the final of the 2013 WHC and beat the Czechs in Sochi, while Slovakia (struggling lately) went to the 2012 WHC final and took the Russians to a shootout in 2014.

They're certainly not bad enough to warrant being replaced by two mickey mouse teams.

The Czechs and Fins are barely hanging in there is it.

Really? In Sochi the Finns lost 2-1 in OT to Canada, eliminated Russia 3-1 and then crushed the US 5-0 for bronze, while the Czechs regularly compete for medals even with their struggles as of late.

People are taking this thing way too seriously.

It only bothers me because the NHL is still iffy about the Olympics going foward. If they commit to 2018 and 2022, ensuring that we'll still have a legit best-on-best event, then they can stage this joke of a "world cup" all they like.

 

[WhiteLight*]

Not true. At the top level Switzerland and Slovakia have shown the ability to compete with Canada and other countries at best on best tournaments over the last decade. There are at least 8 competitive teams.

Best on best you mean the world championships?

It's not 2006 anymore. Slovakia isn't producing any talent.

It isn't fun, it's idiotic, like a more wasteful version of the all star game.

How is it wasteful? People pay $$$ to watch it. The NHL will make big $$$. People will enjoy it. Win-win. Even if people don't like it, the NHL won't lose any fans over it. There's no downside. If there's no downside, how is it idiotic? Maybe if good business ideas are idiotic, then sure.

Who cares if the NHLPA signed off on it, that does nothing to change how idiotic the concept is.

I was responding to a post that was wondering why players weren't voicing their disapproval. They had their chance, it's done. It's PA approved. Clearly, the majority don't mind the format.

The NHL shouldn't do this for a very clear reason - they are presenting this as an international tournament, and then involving non-nations.

So, your issue is about how they're labelling the tournament? Really, its name? Don't we have bigger things to worry about then a tournament's name?

Let's rename the Hlinka tournament because clearly Hlinka isn't playing, so it's misleading.

If a fan wants to see as many NHL players as possible, how lucky that for most of the year there is a whole league called the "NHL" that features exclusively NHL players.

Sure. But also, this tournament will only feature the best NHLers, and we'll get to see different players play with each other. Nothing wrong with it; adds a little variety instead of watching the same old rosters and lines. Open your mind just a crack.

 

[WhiteLight*]

Sure there are. Slovakia and Switzerland aren't exactly pushovers. The Swiss went to the final of the 2013 WHC and beat the Czechs in Sochi, while Slovakia (struggling lately) went to the 2012 WHC final and took the Russians to a shootout in 2014.

They're certainly not bad enough to warrant being replaced by two mickey mouse teams.

Let's be honest, WHC results don't mean anything....

I see where you're coming from with the Czech perspective. But the Czech are arguably not even good enough to be in this tournament. Their D is pitiful. I mean, you gotta draw the line somewhere IMO, and the Czech were just on top, Swiss just below.

No matter where you draw the line, if it's at 4 teams, 8 teams, 12 teams, 16 teams, the difference between the last team selected and the first team left out will always be small. You have to draw the line somewhere. But, the larger the amount of teams, the bigger the gap becomes between the #1 team, Canada, and the last team selected.

So, it doesn't really mean anything how they compare to the Czech. It's how the talent pool is considering all the teams. U23 + all Europe >>>>> Swiss + Slovak. Not even close. Ideally the Czech wouldn't have their own team either, but they needed 8 teams so they drew the line there.

Really? In Sochi the Finns lost 2-1 in OT to Canada, eliminated Russia 3-1 and then crushed the US 5-0 for bronze, while the Czechs regularly compete for medals even with their struggles as of late.

Well it's good they have teams then . I think you're overrating the Czechs, but it's a non issue since they are playing.

It only bothers me because the NHL is still iffy about the Olympics going foward. If they commit to 2018 and 2022, ensuring that we'll still have a legit best-on-best event, then they can stage this joke of a "world cup" all they like.

fair enough.

 

[JackSlater]

Best on best you mean the world championships?

It's not 2006 anymore. Slovakia isn't producing any talent.

By best on best I mean best on best, not the World Championship. Those countries have been fine at the Olympic tournaments over the last decade. They are competitive enough that they can clearly beat any of the top countries and not have it be a massive upset.

How is it wasteful? People pay $$$ to watch it. The NHL will make big $$$. People will enjoy it. Win-win. Even if people don't like it, the NHL won't lose any fans over it. There's no downside. If there's no downside, how is it idiotic? Maybe if good business ideas are idiotic, then sure.

It's a waste of talent, just like the all star game. You will end up with some players representing their countries, and others representing nothing, so there's little to play for. Canadians would watch the tournament in large numbers regardless of the format, and the rest of the world will likely ignore it regardless... there is no way this decision will draw an increased number of viewers, but it will probably deter people who consider it a gimmick from watching. There are plenty of people complaining about the format in Canada (unlike previous editions) so it's wasteful further to add a gimmick to the tournament that many find so cheap. The downside is clear - the NHL cheapens the image of its own tournament, all so the public can see Kopitar and also a team full of young players who will get smoked.

I was responding to a post that was wondering why players weren't voicing their disapproval. They had their chance, it's done. It's PA approved. Clearly, the majority don't mind the format.

We have no idea if the majority "minded" the format. The PA did not have a vote asking if the players mind the format (not that they need to) and even if they do mind it, it doesn't mean they are going to fight the NHL over everything that is less than ideal.

So, your issue is about how they're labelling the tournament? Really, its name? Don't we have bigger things to worry about then a tournament's name?

Yes, if they are presenting this as a best on best international tournament, as Bill Daly has on behalf of the NHL, then this is a problem. He has even suggested that the tournament can replace other best on best tournaments (Olympics) if it is a success. So a legitimate best on best international (ie between nations) tournament being replaced by a gimmick tournament pretending to be an international tournament. Also, to clarify for you, how something is presented does not mean simply what the name is. They can call it what they want, but to pretend this is an international best on best tournament is wrong given the format.

Let's rename the Hlinka tournament because clearly Hlinka isn't playing, so it's misleading.

Terrible example given that the Hlinka tournament was named in honour of someone, unlike this tournament. Good effort though.

Sure. But also, this tournament will only feature the best NHLers, and we'll get to see different players play with each other. Nothing wrong with it; adds a little variety instead of watching the same old rosters and lines. Open your mind just a crack.

Woohoo, maybe we should all ask the NHL to host more all star games too so that we can see players with little to play for featured in "fun" combinations just like this. Everyone does love all star games after all.

 

[WhiteLight*]

By best on best I mean best on best, not the World Championship. Those countries have been fine at the Olympic tournaments over the last decade. They are competitive enough that they can clearly beat any of the top countries and not have it be a massive upset.

Honestly, I don't know the IIHF ranks their teams, but I don't know if what happened a decade ago is still relevant. I don't think it is.

Let's take Slovakia for instance. Even compared to the 2014 Olympics, this tournament is 2 and a half years later. Their top players are Hossa, Gaborik and Chara. They'll be 37, 34 and 39 At that aage, 2.5 years is a lot and can see seep declines. Chara was still a machine in 2014, now he's a shell of his former self. That will hurt Slovakia big time.

For that reason, three tournaments in 2006, 2010 and 2014 aren't that relevant IMO.

It's a waste of talent, just like the all star game. You will end up with some players representing their countries, and others representing nothing, so there's little to play for. Canadians would watch the tournament in large numbers regardless of the format, and the rest of the world will likely ignore it regardless... there is no way this decision will draw an increased number of viewers, but it will probably deter people who consider it a gimmick from watching. There are plenty of people complaining about the format in Canada (unlike previous editions) so it's wasteful further to add a gimmick to the tournament that many find so cheap. The downside is clear - the NHL cheapens the image of its own tournament, all so the public can see Kopitar and also a team full of young players who will get smoked.

But there's also people who will be intrigued. A young guns team? That's cool.

The young guns will be motivated to show that they can play at the Olympics.

The only team who won't be motivated is team Europe maybe.

I mean, I see what you're saying, but I think it's only the diehards like you who won't like it. The casual hockey fan won't care about the weird format.

We have no idea if the majority "minded" the format. The PA did not have a vote asking if the players mind the format (not that they need to) and even if they do mind it, it doesn't mean they are going to fight the NHL over everything that is less than ideal.

Player reps are supposed to keep players informed on negotiations, and they're supposed to represent what the players want. It sounds like you're saying people weren't doing their jobs.

Players knew this coming. And they didn't speak out about it. If it actually meant that much to them, they could have negotiated national teams into the tournament.

Yes, if they are presenting this as a best on best international tournament, as Bill Daly has on behalf of the NHL, then this is a problem. He has even suggested that the tournament can replace other best on best tournaments (Olympics) if it is a success. So a legitimate best on best international (ie between nations) tournament being replaced by a gimmick tournament pretending to be an international tournament. Also, to clarify for you, how something is presented does not mean simply what the name is. They can call it what they want, but to pretend this is an international best on best tournament is wrong given the format.

It used to be called the Canada Cup. Obviously, it featured more than just Canadian teams. This has always been a "gimmicky" tournament to begin with.

It's called an international tournament because the teams are based on countries (even the Europe and U-23). The selection criteria is what country you hail from, and each team represents a country or countries. Hence, international. And it is actually best on best, because a tournament featuring France is not the best on best.

If it is a success (which you say it won't be), that means people (including the players) will like it. Why couldn't it replace the Olympics in that case?

Why do you find best on best country v country (single country) tournaments so sacred? Why is it something that can't be changed? Why is it so important?

Terrible example given that the Hlinka tournament was named in honour of someone, unlike this tournament. Good effort though.

You're saying that the way they are labelling this tournament is wrong. It's just a label. It's just a name. Yes it's a "World" Cup and yes it's an international tournament because the teams are divided based on country.

Woohoo, maybe we should all ask the NHL to host more all star games too so that we can see players with little to play for featured in "fun" combinations just like this. Everyone does love all star games after all.

Well the plan is not an All-Star game. If the players don't end up playing hard, then maybe the NHL will change it. We don't know if that's going to that happen though. Can you see into the future?

 

[JackSlater]

Honestly, I don't know the IIHF ranks their teams, but I don't know if what happened a decade ago is still relevant. I don't think it is.

Let's take Slovakia for instance. Even compared to the 2014 Olympics, this tournament is 2 and a half years later. Their top players are Hossa, Gaborik and Chara. They'll be 37, 34 and 39 At that aage, 2.5 years is a lot and can see seep declines. Chara was still a machine in 2014, now he's a shell of his former self. That will hurt Slovakia big time.

For that reason, three tournaments in 2006, 2010 and 2014 aren't that relevant IMO.

Have to just disagree here, though I agree that Slovakian talent development has stalled significantly over the last 15 years. The trend is that these teams can compete with the top countries. Switzerland is largely without elite talent, and yet they are still competitive.

But there's also people who will be intrigued. A young guns team? That's cool.

The young guns will be motivated to show that they can play at the Olympics.

The only team who won't be motivated is team Europe maybe.

I mean, I see what you're saying, but I think it's only the diehards like you who won't like it. The casual hockey fan won't care about the weird format.

Who is going to be intrigued by the idiotic format? Do you honestly think that anyone who wouldn't otherwise watch is going to start watching this tournament because the Young Gunz are "cool"? I really cannot imagine a single person turning in just for that gimmick, but I know of people who will not watch due to the idiotic gimmick. Viewship doesn't really matter though, I'm only concerned with the idiocy of putting non-national teams into a supposedly international tournament.

Player reps are supposed to keep players informed on negotiations, and they're supposed to represent what the players want. It sounds like you're saying people weren't doing their jobs.

Players knew this coming. And they didn't speak out about it. If it actually meant that much to them, they could have negotiated national teams into the tournament.

Once again, the players cannot fight the NHL on every issue, so lack of public protest does not indicate widespread approval. This is not a very important point though, as I care about the tournament's quality, not union negotiation.

It used to be called the Canada Cup. Obviously, it featured more than just Canadian teams. This has always been a "gimmicky" tournament to begin with.

It's called an international tournament because the teams are based on countries (even the Europe and U-23). The selection criteria is what country you hail from, and each team represents a country or countries. Hence, international. And it is actually best on best, because a tournament featuring France is not the best on best.

If it is a success (which you say it won't be), that means people (including the players) will like it. Why couldn't it replace the Olympics in that case?

Why do you find best on best country v country (single country) tournaments so sacred? Why is it something that can't be changed? Why is it so important?

You're saying that the way they are labelling this tournament is wrong. It's just a label. It's just a name. Yes it's a "World" Cup and yes it's an international tournament because the teams are divided based on country.

Apparently you cannot grasp this, so I will lay it out very directly for you - the name of the tournament does not matter. They can call it whatever they want. They are presenting the tournament (through the announcement and subsequent quotes regarding the tournament) though as an international tournament, which it is not given that U23 North America and European leftovers are not countries. They are presenting the tournament as a best on best replacement, which it is not given that four of the eight teams will not be able to select their optimal rosters.

Adding another best on best tournament would be ideal, and I believe it could pretty easily be better than the Olympics. That this tournament will be used as an attempt to take players out of the Olympics (as spelled out by Daly) is a negative. The ideal situation would be to just have two great best on best tournaments. These international best on best tournaments have provided some of the greatest hockey moments of all time, and the NHL is apparently seeking to prevent this from happening going forward given that this tournament will 1. Not be international 2. Not be best on best 3. Potentially lead to NHL players being pulled out of the Olympics.

Well the plan is not an All-Star game. If the players don't end up playing hard, then maybe the NHL will change it. We don't know if that's going to that happen though. Can you see into the future?

No I can't, but I can see the stupidity of putting the players in a situation where they might consider not playing hard.

 

[Canuckistani]

It's called an international tournament because the teams are based on countries (even the Europe and U-23).

Europe and under-23 are not countries. They are gimmicky ideas that no player in his right mind would ever block a shot for.

Why do you find best on best country v country (single country) tournaments so sacred? Why is it something that can't be changed? Why is it so important?

For the same reason why I wouldn't want to see Team Sweden taking part in the NHL playoffs. It would be effing stupid.

You'll notice that no other team sport mixes non-national teams into international events. There is no "Team Africa" at the FIFA world cup, or team "nations-that-didn't-qualify-from-Europe". There is no "Team NBA rookies" at the Olympic basketball tournament.

This is not done because organizers realize that fans want to see national teams at international events and that doing otherwise would turn the event into a joke. Yet for some reason the NHL doesn't see how Team Kopitar and Team Cool Kidz will cheapen what could otherwise be a serious tournament.

And think of the sabotage being done to Canada and USA. As a Canadian I'm supposed to be OK with Connor McDavid and Nathan McKinnon possibly playing against Team Canada? I'm supposed to be OK with my team being denied its youngest stars at a "best-on-best" event? Had the same rules applied to Vancouver 2010 Canada would have been without Crosby, Toews and Doughty.

If the players don't end up playing hard, then maybe the NHL will change it.

Can you recall a tournament in any sport where you had to ponder whether or not the players will actually give a damn? That should tell you something.

 

[Big Phil]

Fact is that there isn't 8 countries out there that can field competitive teams. That's life. The Czechs and Fins are barely hanging in there is it.

Maybe of we gave it another name you wouldn't have such an issue? What about the 2016 Fun Cup? Now would you be OK with it?

Slovakia came within a whisker of tying Canada in the semis in 2010. If not for Luongo's save on Pavol Demitra in the dying seconds the game would have gone to overtime. This is a team that can't compete?

This tournament is a gimmick, can you imagine how anti-climactic it is going to be watching McDavid go AGAINST Crosby and co? Mario Lemieux would have been on the Youngstars team in 1987. Think about that. Just think about how different hockey history is viewed if the NHL sold out back then as well. We expect great hockey in this tournament because history has shown that it is a very competitive tournament. The NHL flushed that whole issue down the toilet. Just like that. It honestly used to be a joke when we would wonder how Canada "B" would do. But we never thought it would come to fruition.

 

[Former Ladder]

Slovakia came within a whisker of tying Canada in the semis in 2010. If not for Luongo's save on Pavol Demitra in the dying seconds the game would have gone to overtime. This is a team that can't compete?

This tournament is a gimmick, can you imagine how anti-climactic it is going to be watching McDavid go AGAINST Crosby and co? Mario Lemieux would have been on the Youngstars team in 1987. Think about that. Just think about how different hockey history is viewed if the NHL sold out back then as well. We expect great hockey in this tournament because history has shown that it is a very competitive tournament. The NHL flushed that whole issue down the toilet. Just like that. It honestly used to be a joke when we would wonder how Canada "B" would do. But we never thought it would come to fruition.

Yeah, watching top talents face off head-to-head is going to be terrible....

I would think members of this site would be excited to see all of the top young players playing together in a tournament. I get that the pride factor is probably lessened here but it will still be an entertaining tournament with team compositions you are unlikely to ever see again. It certainly won't be shinny-on-ice like the All-Star games are, as some people believe it will be.

 

[Gaps]

Yeah, watching top talents face off head-to-head is going to be terrible....

I would think members of this site would be excited to see all of the top young players playing together in a tournament. I get that the pride factor is probably lessened here but it will still be an entertaining tournament with team compositions you are unlikely to ever see again. It certainly won't be shinny-on-ice like the All-Star games are, as some people believe it will be.

What you don't seem to understand is that we don't want to see those compositions in the first place, especially in a tournament that's supposed to be best-on-best hockey. Thanks to this farce, this tournament is not best-on-best international hockey, it is a joke and a mockery of everything international best-on-best tournaments should be.

 

[DSuttersface]

Fact is that there isn't 8 countries out there that can field competitive teams. That's life. The Czechs and Fins are barely hanging in there is it.

This isn't the Olympics either. So, you can keep sitting there and be frustrated that your OCD need for 8 actual countries isn't being fulfilled... or, you can realize that a tournament filled with all the best players in the world and featuring fun rosters and line combinations will be taking place.

Maybe of we gave it another name you wouldn't have such an issue? What about the 2016 Fun Cup? Now would you be OK with it?


The reality is the NHLPA signed off on this. It's clear the NHL is trying to get as many NHL players to participate as possible. Why the **** wouldn't they? People are taking this thing way too seriously.

The Fins could definitely hang with almost any team out there. They might nit dominate like USA or Canada but they could easily hold their own and could provide some great upsets. Slovakia and Czechs aren't as powerful as they used to be but they are still full of good NHL players and could definitely hold their own as well. As someone else said in this thread it doesn't feel like a tournament it feels like an exhibition. It's a slap in the face to those countries who have produced so many great hockey talents over the years and continue to do so. It's also a disservice to Canada and USA by not allowing them to showcase their best young talent. It's utter crap and easily one of the worst decisions the NHL has made in a while.

 

[The Sweetness]

I hope this team gets crushed and embarrassed due to lack of effort to show what a dumb idea this is. A team that is not a country should not play in an international tournament and I'd imagine the players feel the same.

Imagine someone who is good enough to play for their country but they are instead forced to play on some arbitrary team they have no allegiance to. What a slap on the face.

In a way I also hope Eichel instantly becomes a top player in he league and team USA loses out on the exposure of having a teenage star center on their team.

 

[Canuckistani]

It certainly won't be shinny-on-ice like the All-Star games are, as some people believe it will be.

But shinny-on-ice is what you end up with when the players have no reason at all to give 100%, or even 50%.

And that is exactly what the two joke teams bring to the table.

Hopefully they will both be slaughtered in the first round just to expose the NHL's phony reasoning ("we don't want blowouts") for creating them in the first place.

 

[Del Preston]

 

[JayKing]

Both centers would obviously be deserving no question. I just hope it doesn't force Reinhart and Nurse on the team over say a Damon Severson, Matt Dumba or Cody Ceci who get overlooked in terms of recognition league wide but are more proven.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

Well say goodbye to Gaudreau, Monahan and Hamilton I guess.