2012/2013 realignment

[maplesyrup]

Difficult to single out the 4 most worthy Surnames in all of hockey history I think.

Not really. Gretzky, Orr, Howe, Lemieux. There that was pretty easy if that's the route they want to take with this.

I think you just proved my point.  :-\

What exactly was your point?

That finding the most deserving 4 surnames is tricky.

 

[maplesyrup]

Difficult to single out the 4 most worthy Surnames in all of hockey history I think. Probably easiest to go with 4 boring name of geographical significance as opposed to historical...

The easy thing to do would be to go back to the old division names - Patrick, Smythe, Norris and Adams.

Not a fan of going back to that.... I'd rather remember those divisions as they were.

 

[Redleaf]

Difficult to single out the 4 most worthy Surnames in all of hockey history I think.

Not really. Gretzky, Orr, Howe, Lemieux. There that was pretty easy if that's the route they want to take with this.

I think you just proved my point.  :-\

What exactly was your point?

That finding the most deserving 4 surnames is tricky.

Not tricky at all. I came up with those four names in two seconds. I can't think of more deserving names than those.

 

[maplesyrup]

Difficult to single out the 4 most worthy Surnames in all of hockey history I think.

Not really. Gretzky, Orr, Howe, Lemieux. There that was pretty easy if that's the route they want to take with this.

I think you just proved my point.  :-\

What exactly was your point?

That finding the most deserving 4 surnames is tricky.

Not tricky at all. I came up with those four names in two seconds. I can't think of more deserving names than those.

Well, I can't think of 4 better players. 

 

[Redleaf]

Difficult to single out the 4 most worthy Surnames in all of hockey history I think.

Not really. Gretzky, Orr, Howe, Lemieux. There that was pretty easy if that's the route they want to take with this.

I think you just proved my point.  :-\

What exactly was your point?

That finding the most deserving 4 surnames is tricky.

Not tricky at all. I came up with those four names in two seconds. I can't think of more deserving names than those.

Well, I can't think of 4 better players.

Like I said if thats the route they want to take it works out well. Gretzky's division would include the 2 main teams he played for. Lemieuxs would include the Pens. Orrs would include the Bruins (and Leafs), and Howe's would include the Wings. It lines up nicely.

 

[maplesyrup]

Difficult to single out the 4 most worthy Surnames in all of hockey history I think.

Not really. Gretzky, Orr, Howe, Lemieux. There that was pretty easy if that's the route they want to take with this.

I think you just proved my point.  :-\

What exactly was your point?

That finding the most deserving 4 surnames is tricky.

Not tricky at all. I came up with those four names in two seconds. I can't think of more deserving names than those.

Well, I can't think of 4 better players.

Like I said if thats the route they want to take it works out well. Gretzky's division would include the 2 main teams he played for. Lemieuxs would include the Pens. Orrs would include the Bruins (and Leafs), and Howe's would include the Wings. It lines up nicely.

Maybe one day these guys will be honoured in a similar fashion but I'd say we're jumping the gun by a decade or two... Don't you think?

 

[cw]

Difficult to single out the 4 most worthy Surnames in all of hockey history I think. Probably easiest to go with 4 boring name of geographical significance as opposed to historical...

The easy thing to do would be to go back to the old division names - Patrick, Smythe, Norris and Adams.

Not a fan of going back to that.... I'd rather remember those divisions as they were.

Me too. We've got Smythe, Norris, Adams & Patrick trophies (some honor duplication - not sure it's the same guy being honored for each of them).

Those guys were significant builders of the original six. But to me, it's always been the players that really made it happen.

These suggestions look pretty good to me and they helped take the league from a 6 team league to a 30 team league:
"Gretzky, Orr, Howe, Lemieux"

Having said that, I can't say that I care deeply about the labels.

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

I fear a season where an 85 pt team gets in and a 95 pt team doesn't.

This, a million times this.  The league would be a laughing stock if that happened.  You have to think they will make an expansion or contraction announcement in the not too distant future.

 

[cw]

I fear a season where an 85 pt team gets in and a 95 pt team doesn't.

This, a million times this.  The league would be a laughing stock if that happened.  You have to think they will make an expansion or contraction announcement in the not too distant future.

Or just a move. If Phoenix stays, maybe Detroit moves over to the Leafs division. If Phoenix or another team moves, they can jiggle it accordingly.

 

[maplesyrup]

If we're going to have 4 conferences and we're insisting on a historical flavour, I'd probably insist 2 of them be called the Wales and Campbell... Speaking of which, perhaps 2 new trophies need to be made for the conference winners? Has anyone considered that?

 

[groundskeeper willie]

I fear a season where an 85 pt team gets in and a 95 pt team doesn't.

This, a million times this.  The league would be a laughing stock if that happened.  You have to think they will make an expansion or contraction announcement in the not too distant future.

Or just a move. If Phoenix stays, maybe Detroit moves over to the Leafs division. If Phoenix or another team moves, they can jiggle it accordingly.

I think Detroit needs to stay where they are or the league risks seriously upsetting the Blackhawks who no doubt would be very unhappy losing their only original 6 rival in their division (calling them conferences seems odd to me).

I imagine it is only a matter of time until a team (likely Phoenix) moves to Quebec. Unfortunately, it is likely only a matter of time until we see another two team expansion. It has been the rumour for a long time that the league wants to save the SW Ontario location for an expansion team. I guess the only plus to that for the Leafs is that adding two teams to their division means Boston likely moves to the Atlantic division.

 

[Kin]

Not tricky at all. I came up with those four names in two seconds. I can't think of more deserving names than those.

I don't know. I can think of a name that's on the Cup that's on the cup roughly twice as often as those four names combined.

 

[groundskeeper willie]

Difficult to single out the 4 most worthy Surnames in all of hockey history I think.

Not really. Gretzky, Orr, Howe, Lemieux. There that was pretty easy if that's the route they want to take with this.

Can't say I'd be a fan of those names. Other than Howe, the players seem too recent. And sure they are arguably the most talented players in the last 60 years, but is that really the best criteria?

When I hear the name 'Gretzky' I don't want it to be associated with a division. Seems too trivial for his legacy.

 

[groundskeeper willie]

Not tricky at all. I came up with those four names in two seconds. I can't think of more deserving names than those.

I don't know. I can think of a name that's on the Cup that's on the cup roughly twice as often as those four names combined.

Personally, I might be partial to naming the conferences Bettman, Goodenow, Eagleson, and Ballard.

Seems appropriate for the direction of the league to me.

 

[Kin]

Difficult to single out the 4 most worthy Surnames in all of hockey history I think. Probably easiest to go with 4 boring name of geographical significance as opposed to historical...

The easy thing to do would be to go back to the old division names - Patrick, Smythe, Norris and Adams.

I'm with that. If they're going to go on with this nonsense they might as well toss some tradition into the mix.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I'd name the conferences based on their geographic location, and then name the trophies that are awarded to the conference based on a significant figure. Go with Eastern, Atlantic, Pacific, and Central. Yeah, it's not the most original, but I really don't see the point in jazzing them up. As for the trophies, I like the Wales and Campbell, so I would just add two more. Maybe give the conference that has won those trophies the most combined times the right to keep them. Not a fan of using a modern name like Gretzky or Orr though for the other two, but can't think of any alternatives.

 

[Kin]

As a side note though, how much of a ninja is Gary Bettman proving to be? I don't think there's a thing he couldn't talk the owners into at this point.

 

[groundskeeper willie]

As a side note though, how much of a ninja is Gary Bettman proving to be? I don't think there's a thing he couldn't talk the owners into at this point.

Gord Stellick has an interesting quote from Bob Goodenow in his latest article:

"Over 80 per cent of the owners are beholden to Gary Bettman for their being allowed to join the exclusive NHL ownership fraternity," Goodenow said. "And he makes sure that they realize they are beholden to him.

"He can count on their votes when required and he is also often responsible for influencing and advising who they hire for senior management positions. Such is his power and control."

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/opinion/2011/12/stellicktricity-realignment-vote-no-surprise.html

 

[cw]

Not tricky at all. I came up with those four names in two seconds. I can't think of more deserving names than those.

I don't know. I can think of a name that's on the Cup that's on the cup roughly twice as often as those four names combined.

Whose name is on there roughly 26 times?

 

[groundskeeper willie]

Not tricky at all. I came up with those four names in two seconds. I can't think of more deserving names than those.

I don't know. I can think of a name that's on the Cup that's on the cup roughly twice as often as those four names combined.

Whose name is on there roughly 26 times?

As a guess, probably Richard (combining both brothers though). Didn't both win some off the ice as well as on?