knowescape
Made you look
Yup that's what people do on message boards (some of us weren't alive in the early 70s).
OHL - Defected Players
- Thread starter knowescape
- Start date
Yup that's what people do on message boards (some of us weren't alive in the early 70s).
OMG67
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2013
- 10,844
- 6,993
The OHL is trying to do what it can to get better players into the league. This isn't about trying to penalize teams that are able to get the players to report.
We live in a free market society where people have choices. We need to respect that. Right now, the CHL has competition with NCAA. It gives an advantage to the individual player.
The NHL does not have significant competition. The KHL is the closest option and we do see some of the minimum salary type NHLers going over there to play for twice the amount they would get in the NHL. We aren't seeing high profile talent getting drafted in the first round and deciding that they would prefer to play in an alternate league because they would be giving up way too much money.
Personally, I don't fault any player making a decision that they prefer the NCAA but if an opportunity was available with one or two OHL teams they would consider that instead.
This isn't an issue of a player NOT wanting to play with a selection of teams. This is a situation where a player WANTS to play with a specific team. We need to change out perspective of this being a negative and look at it as a positive. It is like finding a $20 bill in the pocket of an old jacket. If you just throw that old jacket away then you don't find Tht $20 bill. To me, tightening the rules on defected players would be like throwing away the jacket.
The league is better when we have better players playing in it.
knowescape
Made you look
I honestly believe the ones who are serious about playing in the OHL will play where they are drafted. I can't blame a player or agent for trying to get to a better team if that loophole is still wide open.
Players who are so on the fence about NCAA versus an OHL style league have to realize that even if they opt for that shiny new team with all the amenities, a winning record, and the location they desire, nothing stops them from being traded the very next year (or sooner). The only sure-fire guarantee to stay put is NCAA.
I personally believe the OHL has a superior product for hockey, not just five teams in the league but the whole system of play.
This is where a devils advocate might have an issue and chime in.
I would not say this same argument. Without mentioning teams to offend a fan base, there are some cities that if I had an OHL kid that I would not get them to report to because of ownership plan and simple and would look at other avenues. Whether it be NCAA, GOJHL, USHL...etc. I would rather them play there then stifle his development. And before people say small market/big market, some of the small market teams with good ownership don't have as many issues as the one's with poor ownership.
And there are always going to be a small handful wanting to pick their destination like Domi/Rychel/McLeod
Good work! And, you're right. I can't help but 'chime in' because I kinda like the defected player rule.
Three sudbury players in first 13 the year foxx went first; wow.
You've brought up a lot of interesting points, and I could have quoted a few of your posts to address them, but this one seems as good as any. Apologies for the length of the post, but I really think this is a topic worth addressing in detail.
First off, I'm not sure where you're getting your information about Mark Hunter being the hardest-working GM in the league, but I'm willing to accept it--you seem to know a lot more about the workings of the Knights front office than I do. (I also kind of like the way this idea burnishes the mythos of Mark Hunter.) As has been noted, however, Mark Hunter doesn't constitute the entire London Knights scouting staff. There seems to be the assumption (not necessarily by you) that he also had the hardest working team behind him, and since scouting in the OHL is cheap (again, I'll accept this as others seem to have done so), there's no reason everyone else can't hire a similarly hard-working team. But this isn't quite true. In a capitalist system, hard work is almost always compensated. It's difficult to imagine that scouts who work harder and get better results at the draft will, at the same time, accept the same remuneration as their less diligent, less successful peers.
If Mark Hunter was somehow able to employ a better, harder working scouting staff than anyone else in the league while paying them what every other team in the league is playing their scouting staff, well, good on him. And honestly, it's not entirely beyond the realm of possibility for the guy who pulled off the Austin Watson heist. But now when you ask other teams to replicate the Knights' success, you're essentially asking them to be run by the Hunter brothers, i.e. by one of the most successful management teams in major junior hockey history. I hope I don't offend any London posters when I say that you Knights fans have been spoiled. The truth is that Mark Hunters don't grow on trees. Yes, occasionally you get a guy like Dubas who through hard work and intelligence can succeed. But the simple fact is that these guys don't come around often. (Rychel might be another example, but I'm unwilling to give credit to anyone's who's been caught cheating.) When you say, "all you have to do is go out and watch a game," you do a big disservice to Hunter, Dubas, and their (exceedingly rare) ilk. Yes, they're hard working, but they're also brilliant hockey minds.
A few people have made arguments along the lines of "Well, London drafted player X in round Y, and anyone could have taken him in round Y-1. The fact that he ended up in London is the rest of the league's fault." I hope this is London provincialism and not intellectual dishonesty. Setting aside whether London's success can be replicated in other OHL cities (the Windsor and Soo examples suggest it probably can be in many cases), as the league is currently constituted, London has a huge recruiting advantage. There are a number of reasons for this: geography, educational opportunities, state-of-the-art facilities, NHL caliber coaching, a history of success at the junior level, the success of their graduates at the NHL level, etc, etc. The Hunters deserve huge credit for this, but that's the point--Mark Hunter is not walking through the door of the Sudbury Community Arena--and of course, the Knights' success didn't happen overnight. But it happened, it's real, and I think it's understandable that other fans are frustrated, because while other teams can and hopefully will catch up, London's got a big head start.
Simply put, the odds of London recruiting Player X are higher than the odds of Random Team Z acquiring Player X. Obviously there are exceptions--the McLeod brothers weren't coming to London. But the vast majority of time, London is more likely to acquire a random player who has demonstrated reluctance to come to the NHL or is a known college commit than another random OHL team. This means that that player's rights are more valuable to London than to Team Z. I'm not sure if this is obvious to everyone, so I'm going to break down exactly why this is the case. I apologize if this sounds at all patronizing, but I've seen too many people gloss over this important fact.
Sonny Milano is a pretty good player, as we saw from his success in Plymouth last year. If he were playing in the OHL right now, we'd probably have a pretty good idea of his value as a player (1.5 PPG, for starters), and, moreover, we could assume that value would be roughly equivalent to all of the teams he'd agree to accept a trade to. Of course, Milano isn't playing in the OHL right now: when London traded for him, they didn't really trade for Milano--they traded for his rights. Let's pretend Kingston was also interested in getting Milano, and that the two teams saw Milano's value as a player for them as basically equal (this may not be true, but this is just an example to illustrate a larger point). I argued, and I think it's generally accepted, that London is a more desirable location to play than Kingston. Let's attach some numbers to this idea; say that London has a 50% chance of getting Milano to play for them, and Kingston has a 30% chance. Both numbers are probably far too high, but, again, it's just an example. Then the value of Milano's rights to each team is the product of his value to them as a player (again, equal for each team for the purpose of this exercise) multiplied by the likelihood he reports. So we have the following:
The value of Milano's rights to London = 50% x [Milano's value as a player]
The value of Milano's rights to Kingston = 30% x [Milano's value as a player]
No matter what Milano's value is, his rights are more valuable to London than Kingston.
It follows pretty immediately from that that London should be willing to pay more than Kingston for Milano; teams pay what they perceive players to be worth to acquire them. And, lo and behold, that's exactly what London did. This is why the "Well your team could have traded for him too!" rejoinders when other teams' fans were complaining about the Milano transaction didn't hold water. The other teams couldn't offer what London was offering without overpaying.
The Milano example isn't perfect (for one thing, the conditional picks really complicate matters), but it's not supposed to be. I picked it because it's recent and tangible enough that I think it helps explain exactly how the uneven mathematics of the valuation of players' rights work. The key takeaway from this example is that it's also true of the draft. If London has a 20% chance of landing Talented 15-year-old American Hockey Player A (Christian Dvorak, maybe?) and Kingston has a 5% chance of landing him, London can afford to use a higher pick to acquire his rights. It's not that the 19 other teams didn't want Christian Dvorak, or even that they didn't think they could get him to report under the right set of circumstances--it's that his rights were more valuable to London, so London took him higher in the draft than they could. To London, Dvorak was worth a eighth-round pick; to everyone else, he might have been in the 10th-12th round range. It wouldn't surprise me if a handful of teams had planned to take Dvorak if he'd slipped, but, of course, London didn't let that happen.
To summarize: London has a recruiting advantage that is more than just hard work; other teams can't simply go out and replicate this strategy because Mark Hunter is exceptional; this recruiting advantage allows London to expend higher draft picks on risky players and, as a result, turn those picks into those players.
One final note. Even if other teams could find their own Hunter brothers and replicate London's success--which is what I'd personally love to see happen, and which is why I don't begrudge London any of their fabulous success--we, as fans of the other 19 teams, can effectively do nothing about this. When London fans say "Stop whining, start winning!", they're speaking to the GMs and ownership groups of the other teams, but it's the fans on message boards like these that hear it. I hope London fans understand that the situation is frustrating enough for the fans of those other teams without the jeers of London fans piling on. I've seen a lot of accusations that other teams' fans are "jealous" of London's success. Of course we are! The London Knights are a great organization. As a Rangers fan, I'm exceedingly thankful to have such a successful rival to cheer against in every second or third Memorial Cup. If I were a London fan (*shudder*), I'd take that jealousy as a compliment.
Took me a bit to read the above but I think it pretty much explains my feelings in detail.
Nobody can replicate what London has done. If it was that easy then others would be doing it as we speak.
I think the otters organization has worked endlessly to turn this franchise around. As a result one could argue that Erie has had one of the better drafting in the last 4-5 years with plenty of late round talent that panned out from Connor Brown, Travis Dermott, TJ Fergus, Jordan Sambrook, Christian Girhiny, and others that have all been picked beyond the 8th round. And I'm pretty sure that non of these guys just slipped because they were committed to other routes beyond ohl. So other franchises work very hard.. In fact you could just as easily argue harder because they need to make up ground.
It's harder when you have to convince guys to come to your city. And at this stage, yes after lengthy building up and effort to get to the top, London doesn't really need to do much convincing.
I still laugh at the notion that anyone thinks "everyone had a chance to draft him"
And I think it's explained well above in the post. Yeah others can take the risk and draft a Dvorak or a Tkachuk but the odds of many of the teams getting that kid are 0-10% compared to London who off the bat because of their history has a decent chance to convince him.
Again if as an organization you feel you can get about 50% of the "risks" you take then why not??
But if you are an organization would you take that chance if your odds were 10%? It's an option- do you want to draft 15 guys a year with about 14 or 15 of them you know if the ability is there then they will likely come to your team... Or do you want to take 2-3 risks a year and end up with only 11-12 guys if all the players pan out.
In a given draft you may draft 15 players and probably on average about 5-6 will be good enough to be consistent players in league one day. More risk means less bodies to work with in the system.
I theorized a while back that the reason Erie stunk for so long was probably largely due to the drafting. But what exactly about it? I feel they had to reach on guys. You look back and in many cases they would for example: pick 1st-5th overall but draft a player that should have been middle to late first round. They would draft players in 2nd round that probably would have been available in the 3rd. And so on and so forth. Now why is that? Nobody wanted to come to Erie. So they were forced to draft players that mainly would report to their team. You can't afford to not get bodies. And if the kid said he doesn't want to go to your team or wants to go college route.. Then what are you supposed to think .. "Yep we will convince this kid to come here with our rich history of not making the playoffs 3 of last 5 years."
That's the troubles that many teams go through. Once in awhile they will take the risk but it's not worth it when you feel you have little chance.
Who would you take? Matt Tkachuck in 4th round 2013 (64 overall) for example who lets say you figured had a 5-15% chance of joining your team.
Or do you draft a guy like Kyle Maksimovich 3rd round 2014 (59) overall who has about a 90-100% chance of playing based off his brother being in league and let's assume strong interest.
Tkachuck might not show but has elite talent. If he does show he will play 1-2 years for your team.
Maksimovich is a small guy, slight risk, but solid player that could turn out to be top 2 line player and you know he'll report and probably play 4-5 years for your team.
Basically the risk ain't worth it when you are passing on other potential talent you at least know will show
Nobody can replicate what London has done. If it was that easy then others would be doing it as we speak.
I think the otters organization has worked endlessly to turn this franchise around. As a result one could argue that Erie has had one of the better drafting in the last 4-5 years with plenty of late round talent that panned out from Connor Brown, Travis Dermott, TJ Fergus, Jordan Sambrook, Christian Girhiny, and others that have all been picked beyond the 8th round. And I'm pretty sure that non of these guys just slipped because they were committed to other routes beyond ohl. So other franchises work very hard.. In fact you could just as easily argue harder because they need to make up ground.
It's harder when you have to convince guys to come to your city. And at this stage, yes after lengthy building up and effort to get to the top, London doesn't really need to do much convincing.
I still laugh at the notion that anyone thinks "everyone had a chance to draft him"
And I think it's explained well above in the post. Yeah others can take the risk and draft a Dvorak or a Tkachuk but the odds of many of the teams getting that kid are 0-10% compared to London who off the bat because of their history has a decent chance to convince him.
Again if as an organization you feel you can get about 50% of the "risks" you take then why not??
But if you are an organization would you take that chance if your odds were 10%? It's an option- do you want to draft 15 guys a year with about 14 or 15 of them you know if the ability is there then they will likely come to your team... Or do you want to take 2-3 risks a year and end up with only 11-12 guys if all the players pan out.
In a given draft you may draft 15 players and probably on average about 5-6 will be good enough to be consistent players in league one day. More risk means less bodies to work with in the system.
I theorized a while back that the reason Erie stunk for so long was probably largely due to the drafting. But what exactly about it? I feel they had to reach on guys. You look back and in many cases they would for example: pick 1st-5th overall but draft a player that should have been middle to late first round. They would draft players in 2nd round that probably would have been available in the 3rd. And so on and so forth. Now why is that? Nobody wanted to come to Erie. So they were forced to draft players that mainly would report to their team. You can't afford to not get bodies. And if the kid said he doesn't want to go to your team or wants to go college route.. Then what are you supposed to think .. "Yep we will convince this kid to come here with our rich history of not making the playoffs 3 of last 5 years."
That's the troubles that many teams go through. Once in awhile they will take the risk but it's not worth it when you feel you have little chance.
Who would you take? Matt Tkachuck in 4th round 2013 (64 overall) for example who lets say you figured had a 5-15% chance of joining your team.
Or do you draft a guy like Kyle Maksimovich 3rd round 2014 (59) overall who has about a 90-100% chance of playing based off his brother being in league and let's assume strong interest.
Tkachuck might not show but has elite talent. If he does show he will play 1-2 years for your team.
Maksimovich is a small guy, slight risk, but solid player that could turn out to be top 2 line player and you know he'll report and probably play 4-5 years for your team.
Basically the risk ain't worth it when you are passing on other potential talent you at least know will show
knowescape
Made you look
knowescape
Made you look
What I'd love to see is several teams draft players in rounds 5-15 ahead of those with the higher odds and make 'em pay book value to acquire the rights.
Excellent first post "scoresfromcentre". You are bang on.
It baffles me that some people think going to the semis 50% of the time isn't winning. It is!! Because you give your self a chance to win it all 50% or more (maybe got upset in an earlier round or even the semi's).
People have to remember there is 20 teams in the OHL and most pro sports leagues have 30+ teams. That's a big difference. So to not make it at least to the semis and/or finals in a 10 yr span is rough. I really feel for Kingston and Sarnia history, it looks like it will change this year hopefully, Kingston at least.
I think we have seen in the last 10+ yrs and will continue to see the lesser teams only get maybe 1 shot in 10 years at a potential championship run. These teams might see the window, make the big trades and falter and have to go full rebuild again for God knows how long. I will use Sudbury for the current example, how long does one think they can " build" before they can legitimately contend for a championship?
London doesn't have this problem.
It baffles me that some people think going to the semis 50% of the time isn't winning. It is!! Because you give your self a chance to win it all 50% or more (maybe got upset in an earlier round or even the semi's).
People have to remember there is 20 teams in the OHL and most pro sports leagues have 30+ teams. That's a big difference. So to not make it at least to the semis and/or finals in a 10 yr span is rough. I really feel for Kingston and Sarnia history, it looks like it will change this year hopefully, Kingston at least.
I think we have seen in the last 10+ yrs and will continue to see the lesser teams only get maybe 1 shot in 10 years at a potential championship run. These teams might see the window, make the big trades and falter and have to go full rebuild again for God knows how long. I will use Sudbury for the current example, how long does one think they can " build" before they can legitimately contend for a championship?
London doesn't have this problem.
Why do you think London will have an early exit Otto. What do you consider an "early" exit?
Facts - London has 71 pts, 2nd most in the OHL. London has scored by far the most goals, 226, the Storm don't even have half of that in same amount of games.
Ironically the team with the most pts is in their division, making their 71 pts even more strong.
It doesnt look like they are on track for an early exit. Of course anything can happen but it doesn't look like a good chance which is what you are quoted as saying.
It all comes back to two things
1. Work hard and hire the right people
2. Build an organization that players are willing to go to
No one is interested in acknowledging it, and talk around it and give excuses, but why do teams allow themselves to be out worked? It's the easiest thing to control. I've brought this point up conuntless times and it always comes back to the same old 'money, geography, advantages'
Accept that for now, but the easiest thing in the world to do is go out to games. Equal the work ethic, it costs less then 2/3 percent of your entire budget, but others are not willing to make the same sacrifices that Hunter did. It's easier to complain about Hunter then it is to be upset at you own GM for not matching his work ethic.
If it's all about money and geography, how did Kyle Dubas and his team attract players from Ohio, New Jersey, Illinios, Detroit, etc. I think you know the answer, it's 1 and 2 above. He didn't sit there and complain, he tried to outwork Mark and built a program that players want to go to. They don't have a massive budget, they scout incredibly well (see Bunting), take smart, aggressive picks at the draft (worked on recruiting these players post draft, amazing that you can draft players not interested in coming to your team yet eventually sign them after working on them, calculated risks pay off, see Tolchinsiy, Gettenger, Guerler, Demeo, etc.) and instilled a professional atmosphere within the city. The don't have the budget of most teams, the don't have the location, yet they succeed...
How could that be possible without the money, location et all? It's easy, see the two posts above. In a sense Dubas wrote the blueprint on how to build a program that can beat anyone, but I get it, it's easier to complain then it is to challenge your team to be better....
twinsdad
Registered User
Are you referring to the other fans or the other owners/GM?
As fans, there is little we can do except decide whether to buy tickets or not (offer to be a billet family, maybe). But I'll try your way...
Saginaw Spirit, I challenge you to do better!!! Do we get a cup now?
Personally I think every team tries. They aren't in the business to lose money. Franchises cost millions.. It's not like buying NHL 16 and trying to create a dynasty on an xbox. The notion that London just works harder and other teams don't give their fair share of work is ludicrous and pretty rude to suggest. I'm sure London tries to be good but they got X, Y, and Z factors working in their favor.
Regardless, Effort doesn't guarantee success anyways. But it's a cop out to just say "London gives effort thus they win!"
I really gave effort on my math tests as a kid.. Studied and everything. Never was good at it. I probably worked just as hard as the kid that got an A on the exam.
Otto
Lynch Syndrome. Know your families cancer history
If there is more likelihood of a player reporting to London, than Kingston (your example) Wouldn't London be more likely to take that player in the later rounds with the belief that all the other teams would pass on him because they don't feel they could sign him?
What if the kid tells you straight up "I am not going to play for your team (or) I'm not going to play in the ohl"
Then what??? Why take the damn kid. If he shows 0 interest I would rather take solid talent in rounds 1-6 knowing they will report and then beyond round 6 would rather take guys like Quentin Maksimovich, Travis Wood or Riley MacRae. At least those kids want to play for your program
I think you are blind to the simple notion that these kids are probably showing little or no interest when many teams come knocking and then giving London a little wink of the eye as to say "if I got drafted by your top program then I would certainly have to reconsider my plans down the line"
London doesn't wait until round 15 because they don't have to. Why draft Joe Poe in round 10 when you know he has little chance to pan out when you can draft a top talent like Dvorak
Otto
Lynch Syndrome. Know your families cancer history
I have no idea why you are comparing Guelph to London
London is in 3rd place in the west. 1 point up on Kitchener. While London's offence is doing very good, their defence and specifically goaltending is sporadic. There is a good chance London slips to 4th place in the West and quite possible a 2nd round matchup with Erie. Going back to last season the Otters have won 11 straight against London, and they have done it quite handily.
Last edited:
Otto
Lynch Syndrome. Know your families cancer history
20 teams
75% of which had made the finals at least once in the last 10 seasons
Only 3 have not made it as far as the conference finals
7 of the teams have made it to at least the conference finals 3 times in those 10 years.
If you're going to use Sudbury as an example then you need to consider the crap-show of an ownership. I think Saginaw may be a better example.
Otto
Lynch Syndrome. Know your families cancer history
I have no idea what you are saying here.
Again, using the example I quoted. Say Dvorak has a 30% chance of reporting to London and a 5% chance of reporting to anyone else. The original poster said that London would likely take him with an earlier pick because he has a greater chance of reporting there. That makes no sense and actually goes against what most people complained about for years. If the player is less likely to report to another team then why wouldn't London take him far later in the draft?
Otto
Lynch Syndrome. Know your families cancer history
Good points.
it's a well known fact that Mark Hunter would go on scouting trips himself. I believe it was Hunter who found Michael Houser playing in Iowa. The other thing is that the Hunters have built a network of connections. Assistant GM Jim McKellar is a scout for the Blackhawks, while he's no longer on the team payroll you don't think he slides a few pieces of information London's way? Much like operating a business, it's all about networking.
No clue exactly how their drafting process works. No dang clue.
But I can speak to the fact that it's an advantage and it's the reason for their success.
Without these reports of players London would probably be like everyone else most years. Still successful but there would certainly be more rebuild and down years ahead.
And it's clearly not a formula that will consistently work anywhere else or again other teams would jump on board and take the so called risks.
They have let plenty of guys fall to 8 round and beyond and then scooped them up.
Guys like Tkachuck or Jones they got earlier speaks to how talented those kids were and had they have been all ohl then they go in the top 10 or 5 of the draft. Too talented for London to risk losing them later when they know damn well they have the best chance of persuading the kid to come play for them
Wait until round 7 and maybe Sudbury scoops up Tkachuck and says oh well.. If he wants London then London will have to pay for him.
There is more to it then just a kid wanting to go to London more and London being able to just wait until round 15 to get him.
youngblood10
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2010
- 1,401
- 629
I have not read one post complaining about Mark Hunter. I don't know why you keep coming back to this. Several posts have demonstrated that you are very correct in that work ethic and building a good organization is a factor, they also demonstrate that it's by far not the only factor. The playing field is not level. Not by a long shot. You can blame the 19 other lazy gm's & owners for this, but many of us are putting the blame on league for not making a greater effort in putting in measures to do so. Even if it costs them from not maximizing a quick buck. Would it have killed them to through the Colts a bone and host the last Memorial Cup in O? Barrie runs a solid organization? Or have a Friday night hockey from North Bay? The league brass are rolling in $$ not realizing that they are slowly cutting their own throats.
You know what I find interesting
There aren't many rules in place to stop kids and GMs from "manipulating" (for lack of a better word) the draft if you will. Again who knows what rules you could put in place but there could certainly be some that would balance things out
Of all the professional teams: NHL, NFL, NBA, MLB
The least parity exists in mlb where guess what.. Draft "manipulation" can be a factor and there is 0 salary cap so the rich get richer and the smaller markets have little to no shot.
Followed by the NBA where players dictate where they go and who they play with.
It's pretty much the same teams each years in those leagues
Do you think the Pittsburgh Pirates and Detroit Pistons don't try??? Like their ownership just isn't working as hard as say the Yankees or Spurs.
No it's just there are so many factors that are set up to benefit the deep pockets and big markets and so many factors that hurt the small markets.
And yeah that would help to maybe see the ohl go all out and support Erie to hosting the WJC 2018 or to see them at all interested in giving the memorial cup to a team other than 4 or 5 that always get it.
Just so many factors working against these smaller markets and the ohl doesn't really try to make it a fair game them.
Otto
Lynch Syndrome. Know your families cancer history
Knights took Sam Miletic in the 15th round of 2013, wasn't he highly touted?
They took Danny Richmond in the 15th round in 2002, he ended up reporting
Heck, Sarnia took Connor Murphy in the 15th round, he did pretty good for himself
GangGreen
Registered User
- May 27, 2012
- 1,606
- 891
San Antonio is a lot smaller market than Detroit.
The World Series was just won by one of the smallest market teams in MLB, with one of the hardest working GM's
Branch is employed by the owners, and the better players that play in this league, the more money goes in the owners pockets. For some privileged kids, playing in Ann Arbor at U of M is a legitimate option, so they can use that to dictate their preferred location.
Sarnia has never seemed to have a problem getting high-end Americans to report. (Jacobs, Boucher, Murphy etc.) Yet it hasn't translated to winning for them. Why is that?
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Game 7 Cleveland Monsters @ Hershey Bears - Series tied 3-3Wagers: 6Staked: $2,630.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 3 Boston Celtics @ Dallas Mavericks - Boston leads series 2-0Wagers: 5Staked: $3,034.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Series Winner Edmonton Oilers vs Florida PanthersWagers: 6Staked: $10,973.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 3 Florida Panthers @ Edmonton Oilers - FLA leads 2-0Wagers: 5Staked: $2,187.00Event closes- Updated: