Around the NHL 2023-2024

[Memento]

The trail of Tears is not ok because Jackson is dead. But I don't think you should hate people who rooted for Jackson State University because of it. Nor should people hate you because you root tor St. Louis, named for Louis Ix who committed atrocities against Muslims in the crusades. Time does not dull atrocities. But ancient atrocities are no cause to hate someone barely tangentially related to them a century later.

Kansas is the Jayhawks not jayhawkers. The team was not named after the jayhawkers. Very few people know who the Jayhawjers are and even less ever think about them when watching a kansas sporting event. Connecting a person cheering on a college sports team in 2023 to civil war atrocities is beyond insane.

They are literally named the Jayhawks after the Jayhawkers because the term "Jayhawk" is more catchy than the Jayhawkers. Why would a Kansan team name themselves the "Jayhawks"? Ole Miss still has the name "Rebels" (and no, I don't find that okay in the slightest given whom the "Rebels" refer to), and a lot of colleges tend to name themselves after historical facts of their state or interesting lore of the like.

I don't know where the hell that "connecting a person cheering on a college sports team in 2023 to civil war atrocities" ever came into play; I never said that I connected Jayhawks fans (or even the football/basketball/softball/insert other sports players, coaches, etc., for that matter) to that. Ever. Look at any of my posts; the most I said was that the team was named after the Jayhawkers. I never equated the fans to that. I mean, where the hell did that come from, for serious? I'm genuinely confused.

 

[Majorityof1]

They are literally named the Jayhawks after the Jayhawkers because the term "Jayhawk" is more catchy than the Jayhawkers. Why would a Kansan team name themselves the "Jayhawks"? Ole Miss still has the name "Rebels" (and no, I don't find that okay in the slightest given whom the "Rebels" refer to), and a lot of colleges tend to name themselves after historical facts of their state or interesting lore of the like.

I don't know where the hell that "connecting a person cheering on a college sports team in 2023 to civil war atrocities" ever came into play; I never said that I connected Jayhawks fans (or even the football/basketball/softball/insert other sports players, coaches, etc., for that matter) to that. Ever. Look at any of my posts; the most I said was that the team was named after the Jayhawkers. I never equated the fans to that. I mean, where the hell did that come from, for serious? I'm genuinely confused.

If you go to the Kansas unviversity site, it says Jayhawks originated in the 1840s which is before the war. The jayhawkers and KU Jayhawks took their names for the same reason. It is a name associated with that state from before the civil war.

Maybe I did not follow the reason this all came up. But joe galiba said he hated Kc, enjoyed a movie where everyone in KC was killed because he knew people in KC once and they <gasp>. rooted for the Jayhawks. You both than went into a diatribe about how Missouri was noble for naming their team after one civil war group and Kansas should be reviled because they share the name with another.

You said "There are many "Civil War" rivalries going about, but no rivalry in all of sports has as much hatred and history as Missouri/Kansas." So you think this sports rivalry is about the civil war, which is nuts to me. Maybe it's true but it's so dumb either way

 

[joe galiba]

If you go to the Kansas unviversity site, it says Jayhawks originated in the 1840s which is before the war. The jayhawkers and KU Jayhawks took their names for the same reason. It is a name associated with that state from before the civil war.

Maybe I did not follow the reason this all came up. But joe galiba said he hated Kc, enjoyed a movie where everyone in KC was killed because he knew people in KC once and they <gasp>. rooted for the Jayhawks. You both than went into a diatribe about how Missouri was noble for naming their team after one civil war group and Kansas should be reviled because they share the name with another.

You said "There are many "Civil War" rivalries going about, but no rivalry in all of sports has as much hatred and history as Missouri/Kansas." So you think this sports rivalry is about the civil war, which is nuts to me. Maybe it's true but it's so dumb either way

I also don't like people from KC because they were dicks about the 1985 World Series, don't forget that part
f**k Don Denkinger too (even though he was apparently a good dude)

on a different note, still no announcement from the NHL on the Hockey Canada scandal with only 5 games until the season starts

 

[Linkens Mastery]

Did the Flames get re-relocated to KC?

 

[Memento]

If you go to the Kansas unviversity site, it says Jayhawks originated in the 1840s which is before the war. The jayhawkers and KU Jayhawks took their names for the same reason. It is a name associated with that state from before the civil war.

Maybe I did not follow the reason this all came up. But joe galiba said he hated Kc, enjoyed a movie where everyone in KC was killed because he knew people in KC once and they <gasp>. rooted for the Jayhawks. You both than went into a diatribe about how Missouri was noble for naming their team after one civil war group and Kansas should be reviled because they share the name with another.

You said "There are many "Civil War" rivalries going about, but no rivalry in all of sports has as much hatred and history as Missouri/Kansas." So you think this sports rivalry is about the civil war, which is nuts to me. Maybe it's true but it's so dumb either way

Okay. The reason it all came up was because of joe galiba, but I clearly said, "What did K.C. do to you?"

As for Jayhawks, do you really think that KU is going to say that the word "Jayhawk" originated from a notorious bunch of war criminals? It originated in the late 1850s, also known as "Bleeding Kansas", where Missourian slave-owners and Midwestern anti-slavery people fought bloody guerilla warfare after the Kansas/Nebraska Act of 1854, and it continued well into the Civil War.

Why do you think Missouri named themselves the "Tigers"? It wasn't because there are tigers in Missouri, it was because of that regiment that protected the town of Columbia, Missouri, people who never really were interested in the Civil War, but only wanted to protect themselves from Quantrill's Raiders and the Jayhawkers from sacking their town - which happened to many, many other towns in Missouri and Kansas alike. Why shouldn't that be noble? And if someone named themselves after a bunch of murderers and rapists (or a racist name such as the Redskins, for another example) why shouldn't that be reviled?

And I'm not wrong about the "Civil War" rivalries not having as much history and hatred as Missouri/Kansas. You have Oregon and Oregon State, Iowa and Iowa State, many different rivalries known as "Civil Wars", but they didn't originate from the Civil War like Missouri/Kansas did. College teams are notorious for their rivalries, but none, to my knowledge, have the pure vitriol that Missouri/Kansas does, nor the lengthy history, unless we're talking East Coast teams, and even they are tame compared to this rivalry.

It may seem stupid to outsiders, but that's sports. You probably aren't a fan of the Blackhawks because that's what rivalries are. I grew up as a Mizzou fan in the Big Twelve, as some people from Kansas grow up as Jayhawks fans. It's a very complex matter, and maybe it is stupid and nuts, but that's what all sports rivalries are to people on the outside: stupid and nuts.

But yeah, let's get off the subject and back on topic; this is best saved for DMs and such.

 

[joe galiba]

Did the Flames get re-relocated to KC?

The color scheme would fit with the Chiefs

 

[Xerloris]

on a different note, still no announcement from the NHL on the Hockey Canada scandal with only 5 games until the season starts

They're hoping if they wait long enough we'll all forget and they can pretend it never happened.

 

[BlueOil]

MAF with a nice trip after Bedard outdekes himself in the shootout

 

[Linkens Mastery]

MAF with a nice trip after Bedard outdekes himself in the shootout

If that was Binnington people would be crying murder.

 

[Brian39]

Going to be a sad day when Flower retires.

Going off on a tangent, he's just 15 games away from 1000 and will become just the 4th goalie to hit that mark in the history of the NHL. He's 41 starts away from 1000 starts. Barring injury, he will easily hit 100 games played this year and he has a narrow chance of getting to 1000 starts. He should fairly easily hit the 1000 start number if he plays 2 more seasons.

There is a very, very good chance that he will be the last goalie to ever hit these numbers. He was a starter by age 21 and was a regular 60+ start guy (he did that 7 times)

Quick is the next-closest active goalie and he is 247 games away. Bobrovsky would need another 358 games to get there and Varlamov would need another 417. No one else in the league is at 500 games played.

Vasilevski is a workhorse who recently turned 29. He needs another 575 games to get there.

Hellebuyck is a workhorse who recently turned 30. He needs another 555 games to get there.

Gibson is a workhorse who recently turned 30. He needs another 569 games to get there.

These guys all need to average about 65 starts a year through their age 35 seasons in order to get themselves around where Fleury was at entering his age 36 season. The odds of that happening in today's NHL (where no goalie has topped 67 starts since 2016/17) are incredibly small.

Every other active goalie with 350+ games played is 33 or older and have absolutely no shot of more than doubling their current career games played. After the 3 guys I listed above, the next candidates to get themselves to the 1000 game mark are still youngsters that don't have anything close to the resume to speculate about it.

Barring a large increase to the length and/or number of games played in a regular season, I think Fleury is going to be the last goalie to play 1000 games.

 

[BlueDream]

This talk about Fleury is making me mad again that the NHL prevented his fight vs. Binnington from happening.

Talk about something that would have been on highlights all over the place and brought viewership to the league. Everyone wanted to see it.

I wish there was a way to fine the NHL for continually being so clueless.

 

[Brian39]

This talk about Fleury is making me mad again that the NHL prevented his fight vs. Binnington from happening.

Talk about something that would have been on highlights all over the place and brought viewership to the league. Everyone wanted to see it.

I wish there was a way to fine the NHL for continually being so clueless.

Unfortunately, I think that moment cemented that we will never see the refs allow a goalie fight in the NHL again. The league instructed refs to stop a fight when players remove their helmets and you just can't have a goalie fight without removing the helmets.

 

[Xerloris]

Unfortunately, I think that moment cemented that we will never see the refs allow a goalie fight in the NHL again. The league instructed refs to stop a fight when players remove their helmets and you just can't have a goalie fight without removing the helmets.

Th helmet thing pisses me off to no end. I cannot f***ing stand it when guys fight with helmets and visors. It's the dumbest f***ing shit.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Jets going all in on mediocrity. Love to see it, rival teams pushing all their chips in on chance to maybe win a playoff round at some point over next few years. Not that I see a path for Jets to truly be a contender, but spending $100mm+ on the downside of aging players' careers doesn't seem like it.

 

[ScratchCatFever]

he is a complete candy ass and a world class tool

More punchable face: Benn or Stone?

 

[ScratchCatFever]

Is it any wonder the NHL can't grow it's brand? Why the Fleck would they even thinking about putting a franchise back in Atlanta?? (broken nose face palm)

 

[MissouriMook]

More punchable face: Benn or Stone?

Can I punch Mark Stone in the face using Jaime Benn's face? Or vice versa?

 

[Xerloris]

More punchable face: Benn or Stone?

I gotta go with Stone.

 

[Dr Robot]

Most players are out of the league or barely worth league minimum by the time they turn 35. The jets signing 2 guys to big money till they turn 38/39 is pretty ooof. I agree with Blueston, this is the Jets locking themselves in to mediocre.

 

[Snubbed4Vezina]

Most players are out of the league or barely worth league minimum by the time they turn 35. The jets signing 2 guys to big money till they turn 38/39 is pretty ooof. I agree with Blueston, this is the Jets locking themselves in to mediocre.

That was my first thought too. It was a pleasant surprise.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

For all the complaining about Armstrong (and ownership by extension) I'm glad we haven't seen him making moves like that. He allowed declining beloved players who could still play to walk because they wanted too much term, on more than one occasion. And each time it was the right call.

 

[BlueDream]

For all the complaining about Armstrong (and ownership by extension) I'm glad we haven't seen him making moves like that. He allowed declining beloved players who could still play to walk because they wanted too much term, on more than one occasion. And each time it was the right call.

What? Yeah because the Blues don’t have any bad contracts for any aging players?

It wasn’t the right call on Pietrangelo. We are now stuck with Krug and a mess of a defense. That was very clearly the wrong call and nobody can deny it.

Was it the right call on Perron and O’Reilly? Time will tell but certainly no guarantee there.

Basically the only one where he definitively made the right call was Backes, which anybody could have done. But for that one time, he’s given out MANY more awful contracts. You’re giving him way too much credit here.

 

[542365]

For all the complaining about Armstrong (and ownership by extension) I'm glad we haven't seen him making moves like that. He allowed declining beloved players who could still play to walk because they wanted too much term, on more than one occasion. And each time it was the right call.

Don’t think we can say it was the right call with Pietrangelo. He’s still playing at a very high level. Well worth his contract.

 

[ScratchCatFever]

What? Yeah because the Blues don’t have any bad contracts for any aging players?

It wasn’t the right call on Pietrangelo. We are now stuck with Krug and a mess of a defense. That was very clearly the wrong call and nobody can deny it.

Was it the right call on Perron and O’Reilly? Time will tell but certainly no guarantee there.

Basically the only one where he definitively made the right call was Backes, which anybody could have done. But for that one time, he’s given out MANY more awful contracts. You’re giving him way too much credit here.

Keeping Petro would've resulted in virtually the same (if not worse) cap constraints than what we're currently facing, only delayed by 6-7 years as he, O'Reilly, Schenn, and Vladi would all have been on the back 9 of their 30's with next to unmovable contracts. I understand the argument that IF you win another cup none of it matters. But it most certainly would've put us in financial doldrums for the next 8-10 years after that. It wasn't all that dissimilar to the way Pujols left town.

 

[Xerloris]

What? Yeah because the Blues don’t have any bad contracts for any aging players?

It wasn’t the right call on Pietrangelo. We are now stuck with Krug and a mess of a defense. That was very clearly the wrong call and nobody can deny it.

Was it the right call on Perron and O’Reilly? Time will tell but certainly no guarantee there.

Basically the only one where he definitively made the right call was Backes, which anybody could have done. But for that one time, he’s given out MANY more awful contracts. You’re giving him way too much credit here.

Don’t think we can say it was the right call with Pietrangelo. He’s still playing at a very high level. Well worth his contract.

I still think that if Pietrangelo had been a LHD then we would have given him his desired contract. As it stands, we needed a LHD and not another RHD. I think Krug may have been a mistake but I wouldn't say Pietrangelo was a mistake. We should have made a trade for a LHD instead of signing who ever was on the market.