How unbalanced would Team Canada be if NHL'ers were in 2018 Olympics?

[jj cale]

That ship has sailed. Th original six days featured a sponsorship program at the junior level and maybe a bit below, but not to the degree that we see in Europe. It just isn't the way modern leagues are run in North America, given that sponsorship doesn't really fit with a draft system.

The NHL does give sponsorship money, roughly ten million per year I believe, to USA Hockey. It would be nice if Hockey Canada received a few million from the NHL as well, though I don't think that Hockey Canada is hard up for money in any way.

That is not only unfair but wrong.

 

[Xokkeu]

That is not only unfair but wrong.

They give money to hockey Canada. That's why neither are even sniffing around NHL players for the Olympics.

Anyway the USA strategy is to grow hockey and make more hockey fans and more money

 

[jj cale]

They give money to hockey Canada. That's why neither are even sniffing around NHL players for the Olympics.

Anyway the USA strategy is to grow hockey and make more hockey fans and more money

To the tune of the same amount of dollars? I sure hope so because if they do not that is pretty greasy.

 

[JackSlater]

They give money to hockey Canada. That's why neither are even sniffing around NHL players for the Olympics.

Anyway the USA strategy is to grow hockey and make more hockey fans and more money

This is veering from the topic so I don't want to pry that much, but do you know how much money the NHL gives to Hockey Canada? I don't recall the exact number for USA Hockey, just that it is millions. I am seeing ~3.4 million per year specifically for the NTDP. I don't recall anything significant going to Hockey Canada.

 

[Iapyi]

Just watch how much worse the drafts have looked for Canada since Victor Hedman got drafted as number 2 in 2009 (thus not counting Tavares). 2018 would be their last display of their golden generation, hate to miss it.

well us canadians have been hearing this for over a hundred years so bring it on.

 

[Xokkeu]

This is veering from the topic so I don't want to pry that much, but do you know how much money the NHL gives to Hockey Canada? I don't recall the exact number for USA Hockey, just that it is millions. I am seeing ~3.4 million per year specifically for the NTDP. I don't recall anything significant going to Hockey Canada.

Not off the top of my head but I specifically remember Elliot Friedman talking about the Olympics and basically saying USA hockey and hockey Canada get money from the NHL so there's zero chance either takes a rogue player to the Olympics

 

[Big Phil]

Looking at your lineup here it is chalk full of over 30 guys by 2022 which is what that poster was alluding to.

I mean the lineup looks good when you see the names but younger players are going to need to step up and be impact players who can push a few of those players off the team for Team Canada in 2022 to be really formidable IMO.

I mean the guy has a legitimate point, the drafts for Canada have not been as strong lately, it is concerning going forward.

It is really hard to say right now though. Lots of guys can step up, who knows. Dylan Strome, Bennett, Reinhart, etc. Ekblad is another young name I forgot. He'll be a stud on defense by then and he'll be just 25. What will Nolan Patrick be like by then? These are all just projections and to tell you the truth at least half of the team will be different. All I know is that guys like Getzlaf, Perry, Carter and co. will be gone by then. Even the guys over 30 aren't ancient either. Stamkos, Tavares are both 31 then. Crosby is 34. The defense is mostly early 30s at most unless Keith makes it. Price will be 34. I mean Brodeur was an Olympian until he was 37 and he started initially too. Bergeron might be an afterthought by then, who knows. Maybe there is a can't miss stud in the 2019 or 2020 drafts we don't know about yet. Doughty was an Olympian less than two years after he was drafted.

I would rather take Finland than Canada in 2022 and forward.

How is that?

I´m also sad that we don´t get to see what seems to be one of Canadas golden generations last big outing. This team would be a beaty to watch.

This years Canada would be an even bigger favourite than 2010 and 2014 for me. And that was impressive teams. Not as great as the 1987 I would say. And to be frank, I think the 2002 seemed to come together better as then tournament went. More than 2010 and 2014. The World Cup was a joke from the start to me, so I won´t count that as a real tournament. Even if we there got to see what a Canada of this generation could achieve.

And even if Canada has came away with the two last gold medales, people tend to forget, even how impressive it is, that those teams didn´t crush their opponents. They ain´t the legendary unstoppable teams they are made to be.
In 2010 it took OT to beat Switzerland, US beat them, Slovakia almost tied it in the semi-finals and it took OT in the finals against US.
2014 it took OT to beat Finland, 53 minutes in to the QF they where tied 1-1 with Latvia and only beat them by one goal, the US game was only 1-0 and in the finals they beat a demoralised Sweden who where missing their 3 best centers (Sedin, Backstrom, Zetterberg...) by 3-0. An decisive, but not a total dominance They outshot Sweden 3 to 2 in shots.

But this team would have been the defining team of this generation I think. Prime Crosby and young McDavid would have been extatic to see play together for starters.

They've always said this. Heck, the 1976 Canada Cup core was mostly not on the 1981 team and they survived. They turned into 1984 and 1987. It seemed like "curtains" in 1996 too. So much of Canada's core was getting old and there was seemingly no one to pick up the slack even after 1998. The result? 6 best on best tournaments since and Canada has won 5 of them.

I can honestly say that in 2010 I looked at the roster and while impressed I still wondered if this team could pick up the slack from the Mario/Sakic/Yzerman group. Obviously it worked out.

As for 2014 I don't think I've ever seen a team control the play quite like that. They "only" beat Sweden 3-0 but it felt like so much more. The game was literally impossible to come back from once Crosby made it 2-0 in the 2nd period. I've never thought a 2-0 game was a lock cinch before.

2016 we were missing some big names (McDavid, Keith, Benn, Seguin) and up until the final game we barely were ever trailing in a game. A little scare against Russia in the semis at one point but in all honesty they were trailing for 1 minute late in the second. The final was 5-3 and that includes a goal with 9 seconds left for Russia. No point really. In the 2nd game of the final against Europe they were trailing for 57 minutes and then won 2-1. Other than 1 minute in the Russian game this was the only time this team trailed. 2014 they NEVER trailed. Outscoring your opposition 24-8 in 6 games is pretty dominant in 2016 don't you think?

 

[jj cale]

It is really hard to say right now though. Lots of guys can step up, who knows. Dylan Strome, Bennett, Reinhart, etc. Ekblad is another young name I forgot. He'll be a stud on defense by then and he'll be just 25. What will Nolan Patrick be like by then? These are all just projections and to tell you the truth at least half of the team will be different. All I know is that guys like Getzlaf, Perry, Carter and co. will be gone by then. Even the guys over 30 aren't ancient either. Stamkos, Tavares are both 31 then. Crosby is 34. The defense is mostly early 30s at most unless Keith makes it. Price will be 34. I mean Brodeur was an Olympian until he was 37 and he started initially too. Bergeron might be an afterthought by then, who knows. Maybe there is a can't miss stud in the 2019 or 2020 drafts we don't know about yet. Doughty was an Olympian less than two years after he was drafted.



How is that?



They've always said this. Heck, the 1976 Canada Cup core was mostly not on the 1981 team and they survived. They turned into 1984 and 1987. It seemed like "curtains" in 1996 too. So much of Canada's core was getting old and there was seemingly no one to pick up the slack even after 1998. The result? 6 best on best tournaments since and Canada has won 5 of them.

I can honestly say that in 2010 I looked at the roster and while impressed I still wondered if this team could pick up the slack from the Mario/Sakic/Yzerman group. Obviously it worked out.

As for 2014 I don't think I've ever seen a team control the play quite like that. They "only" beat Sweden 3-0 but it felt like so much more. The game was literally impossible to come back from once Crosby made it 2-0 in the 2nd period. I've never thought a 2-0 game was a lock cinch before.

2016 we were missing some big names (McDavid, Keith, Benn, Seguin) and up until the final game we barely were ever trailing in a game. A little scare against Russia in the semis at one point but in all honesty they were trailing for 1 minute late in the second. The final was 5-3 and that includes a goal with 9 seconds left for Russia. No point really. In the 2nd game of the final against Europe they were trailing for 57 minutes and then won 2-1. Other than 1 minute in the Russian game this was the only time this team trailed. 2014 they NEVER trailed. Outscoring your opposition 24-8 in 6 games is pretty dominant in 2016 don't you think?

Oh I agree with you, we do not know who might be coming with a charge to make that 2022 team.

Agreed on 2014, some scores were close but when you watched the games my god.....that was the easiest best on best victory for Canada that I have ever experienced and i have been watching since 1976 Canada Cup. The poster says the shots in the Sweden game were 2-1 so he is implying that game was tough but that game was like taking candy from a baby, we controlled the whole flow of play ALL game.

It was never in doubt from about a few minutes into the first, Sweden did not have a chance the way Canada was playing. The semi with the U.S was like that also, it ended up 1-0 yet felt like a 5-0 game watching it, they just could not get anything going or done against us and were turned aside with ease all game long.

 

[JackSlater]

Oh I agree with you, we do not know who might be coming with a charge to make that 2022 team.

Agreed on 2014, some scores were close but when you watched the games my god.....that was the easiest best on best victory for Canada that I have ever experienced and i have been watching since 1976 Canada Cup. The poster says the shots in the Sweden game were 2-1 so he is implying that game was tough but that game was like taking candy from a baby, we controlled the whole flow of play ALL game.

It was never in doubt from about a few minutes into the first, Sweden did not have a chance the way Canada was playing. The semi with the U.S was like that also, it ended up 1-0 yet felt like a 5-0 game watching it, they just could not get anything going or done against us and were turned aside with ease all game long.

Be prepared once again to hear about the mythical three centres that Sweden was missing. Don't prepare to hear about Canada missing Stamkos and Tavares, or all the various other players that have been injured before.

 

[RandV]

Looking at your lineup here it is chalk full of over 30 guys by 2022 which is what that poster was alluding to.

I mean the lineup looks good when you see the names but younger players are going to need to step up and be impact players who can push a few of those players off the team for Team Canada in 2022 to be really formidable IMO.

I mean the guy has a legitimate point, the drafts for Canada have not been as strong lately, it is concerning going forward.

I don't think it's too much of a concern. These things can be cyclical, and while you may have a 3-5 year junior drought your national team players can have a shelf life of 15+ years. That gives you a lot of leeway before you have to start filling spots with B-team players.

 

[RandV]

And even if Canada has came away with the two last gold medales, people tend to forget, even how impressive it is, that those teams didn´t crush their opponents. They ain´t the legendary unstoppable teams they are made to be.
In 2010 it took OT to beat Switzerland, US beat them, Slovakia almost tied it in the semi-finals and it took OT in the finals against US.
2014 it took OT to beat Finland, 53 minutes in to the QF they where tied 1-1 with Latvia and only beat them by one goal, the US game was only 1-0 and in the finals they beat a demoralised Sweden who where missing their 3 best centers (Sedin, Backstrom, Zetterberg...) by 3-0. An decisive, but not a total dominance They outshot Sweden 3 to 2 in shots.

Depending on how you want to look at it in 2014 while the scores were close team Canada did absolutely crush the competition on the ice. It's odd how they didn't score more, but in terms of possession/shots/chances it was a much stronger showing than their previous gold medals.

 

[Xokkeu]

Canada 2010 was relatively even with the competition. Slightly better of course and deserved to win. But could have lost

Canada 2014 was never going to lose

 

[jj cale]

Be prepared once again to hear about the mythical three centres that Sweden was missing. Don't prepare to hear about Canada missing Stamkos and Tavares, or all the various other players that have been injured before.

For some reason Canada never gets cut slack for whoever they miss in any year at any time.

Everyone else does, but not Canada.

Depth they say.

 

[jj cale]

I don't think it's too much of a concern. These things can be cyclical, and while you may have a 3-5 year junior drought your national team players can have a shelf life of 15+ years. That gives you a lot of leeway before you have to start filling spots with B-team players.

I sure hope not but recent drafts including next year do have me worried a bit.

Jack Slater has pointed this out before and it is valid. Canada needs to make some changes and up it's game again I think.

 

[1Gold Standard]

I sure hope not but recent drafts including next year do have me worried a bit.

Jack Slater has pointed this out before and it is valid. Canada needs to make some changes and up it's game again I think.

I'm the one who has been pointing that out for years...I'm the Hockey Canada critic in these parts...

and change won't happen...it will have to be forced by a series of stinging defeats such as the '96 World Cup and '98 Olympics.

There are too many moronic bureaucrats working at Hockey Canada who are more worried about their cozy positions than anything else at this point in time.

And even if that were to happen and Summit 2.0 was held, I have serious doubts it would have the same kind of impact as the first one.

 

[jj cale]

I'm the one who has been pointing that out for years...I'm the Hockey Canada critic in these parts...

and change won't happen...it will have to be forced by a series of stinging defeats such as the '96 World Cup and '98 Olympics.

There are too many moronic bureaucrats working at Hockey Canada who are more worried about their cozy positions than anything else at this point in time.

And even if that were to happen and Summit 2.0 was held, I have serious doubts it would have the same kind of impact as the first one.

I surely know you are on their case like no one else but Slater has made more references to the recent drafts. Now if we are talking about everything else to do with Hockey Canada then yes.............no one has been after their blood that compares with Mr writer.

 

[JackSlater]

For some reason Canada never gets cut slack for whoever they miss in any year at any time.

Everyone else does, but not Canada.

Depth they say.

I just find the fixation on those three missing players odd. It was a 3-0 game that felt even more lopsided than the score implies. I've heard more about those three missing centres in a lopsided game than I have about Canada missing Sakic/Kariya in a shootout in 1998 or about Canada missing Lemieux/Kariya/Francis/MacInnis/Bourque/Roy in 1996. Russia has had tournaments where a ridiculous amount of its best players were missing (Canada Cups 1976 and 1991, Olympics 1998) and you still hear about it less often.

 

[jj cale]

I just find the fixation on those three missing players odd. It was a 3-0 game that felt even more lopsided than the score implies. I've heard more about those three missing centres in a lopsided game than I have about Canada missing Sakic/Kariya in a shootout in 1998 or about Canada missing Lemieux/Kariya/Francis/MacInnis/Bourque/Roy in 1996. Russia has had tournaments where a ridiculous amount of its best players were missing (Canada Cups 1976 and 1991, Olympics 1998) and you still hear about it less often.

Very true, the clinging to that argument among them has been over the top strong.

 

[Xokkeu]

For some reason Canada never gets cut slack for whoever they miss in any year at any time.

Everyone else does, but not Canada.

Depth they say.

Canada has lost in 11 years so there's not much to make up bs excuses about. That's why Canadian fans trash the iihf worlds so much because they've lost there recently.


Pretty much the same the world of sport over

BS excuses come from losing.

 

[jj cale]

Canada has lost in 11 years so there's not much to make up bs excuses about. That's why Canadian fans trash the iihf worlds so much because they've lost there recently.


Pretty much the same the world of sport over

BS excuses come from losing.

Actually Canada has won 2 of the last 3 there with a silver being the one they fell short on in the last 3 years.

Not much to complain about at the IIHF worlds for Canada lately.

Bottom line, when it comes to best on best(which the IIHF worlds are most certainly not) Canada never gets cut any slack for missing key players like everyone else does. If they are missing them the attitude is "so what, Canada has lots of players to cover that" When in reality you really can't replace guys like Mario,Macinnis,Bourque,Tavares,Stamkos, ETC.

Canada is held to different standards among fans from other countries.

I know it and you know it.

 

[Xokkeu]

Actually Canada has won 2 of the last 3 there with a silver being the one they fell short on in the last 3 years.

Not much to complain about at the IIHF worlds for Canada lately.

Bottom line, when it comes to best on best(which the IIHF worlds are most certainly not) Canada never gets cut any slack for missing key players like everyone else does. If they are missing them the attitude is "so what, Canada has lots of players to cover that" When in reality you really can't replace guys like Mario,Macinnis,Bourque,Tavares,Stamkos, ETC.

Canada is held to different standards among fans from other countries.

I know it and you know it.

I think you're just being sensitive. fans from other countries aren't going to be making excuses for Canada losing.

sports fans who make irrational emotional investments in their teams are inevitably going to complain and find a scape goat for why they lost. They don't care about why you lost, or why the USA team lost or anybody else. Because it's not their team.

 

[RandV]

I sure hope not but recent drafts including next year do have me worried a bit.

Jack Slater has pointed this out before and it is valid. Canada needs to make some changes and up it's game again I think.

Don't forget that Canada also tends to be held to a higher standard here, like if they don't have a 20 man roster of NHL all-stars they're not going to be favorites. Just looking at Sweden for example, the best competition in 2014, iced players like Markus Kruger, Carl Hagelin, and Gustav Nyquist.

It's competitive because there's only so much ice time to go around with 18+ skaters, if they're all first line/pairing talents used to getting top minutes then a lot of the advantage is going to waste, and a team like Russia with a few elite talents surrounded by decent-good complementary players can compete with Canada.

Going by that model, McDavid could be the core player for team Canada for the next 20 years (assuming we get back to meaningful best on best competition). Then you also have a handful of top players still in there mid-late 20's like Stamkos, Tavares, Seguin, Benn, that could be in the picture another 10 years. If you need to dig a little deeper then maybe guys like Taylor Hall will finally get a chance.

All in all that gives a lot of time to and more drafts to fill in the gaps of expiring guys like Thornton/Getzlaf/Perry. 2014 (and 2018 if it were allowed) may be a peak no one else will reach for some time, but Canada should still retain the best roster for the foreseeable future.

 

[jj cale]

I think you're just being sensitive. fans from other countries aren't going to be making excuses for Canada losing.

sports fans who make irrational emotional investments in their teams are inevitably going to complain and find a scape goat for why they lost. They don't care about why you lost, or why the USA team lost or anybody else. Because it's not their team.

Thats for sure,but I wasn't saying that, I was saying the opposite of that. I am saying that when Canada misses key players they never take that into account but if their team is missing players.................it's the end of the world.

Funny how that works.

Maybe I am being a little sensitive but it irks me when fans don't call it straight down the middle.

 

[jj cale]

Don't forget that Canada also tends to be held to a higher standard here, like if they don't have a 20 man roster of NHL all-stars they're not going to be favorites. Just looking at Sweden for example, the best competition in 2014, iced players like Markus Kruger, Carl Hagelin, and Gustav Nyquist.

It's competitive because there's only so much ice time to go around with 18+ skaters, if they're all first line/pairing talents used to getting top minutes then a lot of the advantage is going to waste, and a team like Russia with a few elite talents surrounded by decent-good complementary players can compete with Canada.

Going by that model, McDavid could be the core player for team Canada for the next 20 years (assuming we get back to meaningful best on best competition). Then you also have a handful of top players still in there mid-late 20's like Stamkos, Tavares, Seguin, Benn, that could be in the picture another 10 years. If you need to dig a little deeper then maybe guys like Taylor Hall will finally get a chance.

All in all that gives a lot of time to and more drafts to fill in the gaps of expiring guys like Thornton/Getzlaf/Perry. 2014 (and 2018 if it were allowed) may be a peak no one else will reach for some time, but Canada should still retain the best roster for the foreseeable future.

Very much so, it is hard not to notice.

Anyway, let's hope those gaps get filled, I think they can and it is early in the ballgame for 2022 possibilites.

 

[Big Phil]

Oh I agree with you, we do not know who might be coming with a charge to make that 2022 team.

Agreed on 2014, some scores were close but when you watched the games my god.....that was the easiest best on best victory for Canada that I have ever experienced and i have been watching since 1976 Canada Cup. The poster says the shots in the Sweden game were 2-1 so he is implying that game was tough but that game was like taking candy from a baby, we controlled the whole flow of play ALL game.

It was never in doubt from about a few minutes into the first, Sweden did not have a chance the way Canada was playing. The semi with the U.S was like that also, it ended up 1-0 yet felt like a 5-0 game watching it, they just could not get anything going or done against us and were turned aside with ease all game long.

Just for the heck of it I looked at the shots. That doesn't always tell you the full story but it helps.

Canada/Norway 3-1
Shots: 38-20

Canada/Austria 6-0
Shots: 46-23

Canada/Finland 2-1 (OT)
Shots: 27-15

Canada/Latvia 2-1
Shots: 57-16

Canada/USA 1-0
Shots: 37-31

Canada/Sweden 3-0
Shots: 36-24

So you can see other than the US game it wasn't close. Even in the American game, I don't remember a slew of good chances either and Price having to stand on his head. I remember they always seemed to pick up the loose pucks around the net.

I just find the fixation on those three missing players odd. It was a 3-0 game that felt even more lopsided than the score implies. I've heard more about those three missing centres in a lopsided game than I have about Canada missing Sakic/Kariya in a shootout in 1998 or about Canada missing Lemieux/Kariya/Francis/MacInnis/Bourque/Roy in 1996. Russia has had tournaments where a ridiculous amount of its best players were missing (Canada Cups 1976 and 1991, Olympics 1998) and you still hear about it less often.

Right.

Stamkos and Tavares I will say hurt just as much. Of course, we added St. Louis with Stamkos out but he wasn't a big factor. For whatever reason Babcock was not a huge fan of having him on the team, or Subban, and the ice time he gave them showed. But even in the World Cup last year losing Benn, Seguin and Keith was noticeable. Those are three world class talents. We lost Carter too and had Perry come in to replace him. I honestly don't think that was a downgrade or an upgrade. But the other three you can't replace them, and they didn't really.