HockeyPops
Registered User
- Aug 20, 2018
- 7,812
- 6,890
No doubt that would be the spin if it works out. But I have a hard time believing that Raftis read the tea leaves in this instance when there are very few other examples of that happening.
You can still get the signed kid to return as an OA, especially goaltenders. I know NHL signed guys usually end up in the AHL, but some do get returned. I think you leave that option open.I feel like they may remove the OA completely from the league…
I feel like they may remove the OA completely from the league…
no one knew at the draft. Only reason they are moving forward with it now is the lawsuit, which was after. your right it’ll spin and look like it for sure, but it was not knownNo doubt that would be the spin if it works out. But I have a hard time believing that Raftis read the tea leaves in this instance when there are very few other examples of that happening.
Would it be reasonable to think that this exact scenario (NCAA eligibility rules change) was something Raftis anticipated when he drafted Croskery? This possibility has been on the table for some time, right?
Hefty price for 1 team is not really an issue for other teams. The Haves keep getting better.I’ve heard that USHL is asking a hefty price on transfers on players. This could stop players from not coming until the summer time. Anyone else hearing anything similar?
Probably safer to bank on Croskery coming in the summer.
I think they saw a top 5 talent in the draft who had strong ties to the Soo and felt like it was worth the risk. They did the same thing with Rutger McGroarty and it didn't work out, but it's a massive win when it does work out.Would it be reasonable to think that this exact scenario (NCAA eligibility rules change) was something Raftis anticipated when he drafted Croskery? This possibility has been on the table for some time, right?
i think the point for some of us is that maybe the "risky" picks shouldn't happen in years where we have missing picks and players we're unsure will report. there's no excuse for 1 player coming out of the first 5 rounds. if he ends up here that's great, if he doesn't we're going to have to spend multiple picks per player in trades to supplement our roster, and a comp 1st pick next year doesn't add an 18-20 year old "neckbeard" that we need to compete in the playoffs in 2 years.I think they saw a top 5 talent in the draft who had strong ties to the Soo and felt like it was worth the risk. They did the same thing with Rutger McGroarty and it didn't work out, but it's a massive win when it does work out.
If you get Croskery here in our system and with our fans along with an NHL contract, he'll have second thoughts about NCAA. CHL has always been a better path for players.
This is a great point. And the problem with the way that Raftis always adds with a mediocre team and never really sells off, is that we are always at the draft missing picks. Every year. It was really only 2021 and 2022 that we didn't. I had hoped at the time that Raftis was turning over a new leaf, but now it appears it was simply a blip as a result of not playing hockey for a season and not having an opportunity of throwing a way picks, because of covid.i think the point for some of us is that maybe the "risky" picks shouldn't happen in years where we have missing picks and players we're unsure will report. there's no excuse for 1 player coming out of the first 5 rounds. if he ends up here that's great, if he doesn't we're going to have to spend multiple picks per player in trades to supplement our roster, and a comp 1st pick next year doesn't add an 18-20 year old "neckbeard" that we need to compete in the playoffs in 2 years.
That’s fair. I apologize. After further research it was inappropriate and I’m sorry for trying to joke about it as well.who's the jew, or the muslim...?
it's unacceptable no matter how much knights fans want to play it down.
I don't think I can agree with the post above. It seems to be almost condoning the behaviour without condoning the behaviour.
Is it really too much to ask that this behaviour not be tolerated?
I agree that there are a lot of inappropriate things said on the ice, even between teammates. There's a few other things to consider in this instance.I totally understand what you are saying, I am not saying to tolerate this behaviour. But why single one person out, when "most" are doing it?
I have heard the chirping on the ice, and if I can hear it the officials in the middle of the scrums can hear it. I can promise you a lot of what is said is a suspend able offense based on the statement the OHL just put out.
If I tell you " I do not like you" and then you tell me " I do not like you ", why would only one of us get suspended if the official heard us both saying something that should not be "said" on the ice?
Sponsors likely play a factor in this - if the league doesn't appear to care about a slur, sponsors may not want to associate with the league and they'd lose money.I just find it rather confusing that is all. Sticks and Stones kind of thing.
Sim hurt a players feelings and gets 5 games. Was it warranted, sure based on league rules it is no matter what was said to him initially.
Boulton is on his THIRD suspension of the year. This time he charges and throws a flying elbow to the face of a player who is on his knees and defenseless and only gets 2 games? Yet the league puts out a statement that they are doing their best at taking head shots out of the game and that player safety is their utmost priority?