Toggle sidebar

League News: NHL Talk - (News n' Scores n' Stuff) | 2023-24 Regular Season Edition

Status
Not open for further replies.
CapitalsCupReality said:
My Marvel What-If sense wonders if we don’t win 6 Cups with Ovechkin AND Crosby….but that chance was pretty much stolen. I’m happy about the way things turned out, totally thankful, but we got jobbed. But I also don’t spend a millisecond EVER thinking about it until someone brings it up here.
Click to expand...
This exactly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crab
Why are the intermission guys on ESPN carrying on about “why is Pinto suspended if he didn’t bet on games?” Wasn’t it already reported someone else accessed his account and did? How is ESPN behind on this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Calicaps
max21 said:
What was the one time rule that helped Pittsburgh in the draft? I don’t feel like researching lol
Click to expand...
With no standings to base the 2005 NHL draft on, they used the following lottery instead (quote from Wikipedia):

Teams were weighted based on playoff appearances in the last three completed seasons (2001-02, 02-03 and 03-04), and first overall picks in the last four drafts (2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004). Three lottery balls each were assigned to teams which had not qualified for any of those playoffs and received no first overall picks in that period. Teams which had one playoff appearance or first overall pick in those years were given two lottery balls. All other teams received one lottery ball.

Because the Capitals had a playoff appearance in that timeframe (01-02) and won the lottery in 2004, the team only had one ping pong ball. Pittsburgh received 3 (they traded up for MAF but did not win the lottery and their last playoff appearance was 00-01). Buffalo, Columbus, and New York (R) also had 3 each.

I will not say it was rigged for Pittsburgh, but the rules were crafted in the worst possible way for the Capitals.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: um, RedRocking, Calicaps and 3 others
Kazer said:
With no standings to base the 2005 NHL draft on, they used the following lottery instead (quote from Wikipedia):

Teams were weighted based on playoff appearances in the last three completed seasons (2001-02, 02-03 and 03-04), and first overall picks in the last four drafts (2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004). Three lottery balls each were assigned to teams which had not qualified for any of those playoffs and received no first overall picks in that period. Teams which had one playoff appearance or first overall pick in those years were given two lottery balls. All other teams received one lottery ball.

Because the Capitals had a playoff appearance in that timeframe (01-02) and won the lottery in 2004, the team only had one ping pong ball. Pittsburgh received 3 (they traded up for MAF but did not win the lottery and their last playoff appearance was 00-01). Buffalo, Columbus, and New York (R) also had 3 each.

I will not say it was rigged for Pittsburgh, but the rules were crafted in the worst possible way for the Capitals.
Click to expand...
I remember being so pissed that the MAF pick didn't count. It was a first overall, no matter how they got it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Block
twabby said:
Case closed.
Click to expand...
I know you think it's all just a good-ol'-boy network, and I don't entirely disagree. But in all seriousness, where would you like them to pull other options from, exactly? For instance, I was really happy to see San Jose go in a new direction, but they basically picked Grier out of nowhere. I guess if he crashes and burns, it's not much worse than using a low-quality old retread, but it's arguably a bigger risk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RedRocking
Calicaps said:
I know you think it's all just a good-ol'-boy network, and I don't entirely disagree. But in all seriousness, where would you like them to pull other options from, exactly? For instance, I was really happy to see San Jose go in a new direction, but they basically picked Grier out of nowhere. I guess if he crashes and burns, it's not much worse than using a low-quality old retread, but it's arguably a bigger risk.
Click to expand...
I do take your meaning, in the sense that young upcoming GM's from the fancy side aren't really proving to have a visibly better track record while some former players have entered the fold and seem to be able to at least match the results (Dubas and that dingdong in Arizona vs, like... Yzerman and Drury)

But Chiarelli is so bad I'd rather they see what Pierre McGuire is up to right now if we're being fully honest. He's a complete trash fire and has been over such a long time, with such predictable results, that it's not even about the old boys as a whole and really specifically about how astronomically bad he is as a GM, coupled with the fact that he's apparently on a short list... makes it hard to understand why "doing it before" is better than "proving to do it well"

shit, give their AGM the deadline just for their portfolio and evaluate the candidates when people are moving jobs instead of willingly bringing in a complete fool this early and potentially tethering yourself to him for 3-5 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Empty Goal Net and Calicaps
HTFN said:
I do take your meaning, in the sense that young upcoming GM's from the fancy side aren't really proving to have a visibly better track record while some former players have entered the fold and seem to be able to at least match the results (Dubas and that dingdong in Arizona vs, like... Yzerman and Drury)

But Chiarelli is so bad I'd rather they see what Pierre McGuire is up to right now if we're being fully honest. He's a complete trash fire and has been over such a long time, with such predictable results, that it's not even about the old boys as a whole and really specifically about how astronomically bad he is as a GM, coupled with the fact that he's apparently on a short list... makes it hard to understand why "doing it before" is better than "proving to do it well"

shit, give their AGM the deadline just for their portfolio and evaluate the candidates when people are moving jobs instead of willingly bringing in a complete fool this early and potentially tethering yourself to him for 3-5 years.
Click to expand...
yeah, he's dreadful. I won't argue that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HTFN
Calicaps said:
I know you think it's all just a good-ol'-boy network, and I don't entirely disagree. But in all seriousness, where would you like them to pull other options from, exactly? For instance, I was really happy to see San Jose go in a new direction, but they basically picked Grier out of nowhere. I guess if he crashes and burns, it's not much worse than using a low-quality old retread, but it's arguably a bigger risk.
Click to expand...

I mean, they have people that weren't GM before. It's harder in the NHL when no one but the GM has a wikipedia page, but the NFL and NBA have both shown a willingness to try younger and new guys. Like, Brad Holmes for the Detroit Lions. Did 7 years as the Director of College Scouting for the Rams, got hired as the Lions GM in 21 and has them rolling. Only in his 40's. Brandon Beane did 6 years as Director of Football Ops, one year as an AGM, and has been with the Bills killing it since 2017. He's 47.

It's entirely a good-ole-boy's network. There is literally zero justification to *ever* think of a guy like Chiarelli anymore.

As an aside, you'd think the success of Dubas would have smart organizations trying to strap their young wiz kids with the rocket and see where they land.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hivemind
Calicaps said:
yeah, he's dreadful. I won't argue that.
Click to expand...
That's most of the reason I'm on team twabby for this one, there are GM retreads that wouldn't make me think very long or hard about the reasoning. This one is just.... what? Why? Like seriously, all the retreads out there and this is one of the first ones we hear about?

Isn't the first time though, I think I've seen his name linked to a few different places over the last few years, so I wonder if said old boy's club is just giving him interviews to make him feel good but frankly never taking him all that seriously. Like a courtesy interview and we get a little tweet about how he's on the list, but he's not really on the main list.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Calicaps
Flyers allowed 5 goals on 14 shots - okay one was an empty net but how the hell do you only allow 14 shots in an entire game and let in 5 goals?? :laugh::laugh:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom